RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01910
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) be changed
from 8 Jul 84 to 20 Jul 83.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He entered the Air Force on 15 Jan 85 from the United States Marine
Corps (USMC) Reserve. His TAFMSD was computed to be 20 Jul 83. On 20
May 02, after 17 years, he was notified that the date was computed
incorrectly and his new service date was 8 Jul 84. The discrepancy
should have been discovered 17 years ago and every time he was
promoted. He was advised on several occasions by different personnel
offices that his TAFMSD was correct.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided extracts from his
military personnel records and documentation pertaining to his TAFMSD.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
master sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 May 00. His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 8 Jul 84.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAO recommended denial. They noted that the applicant entered
the USMC Reserve on 06 Oct 82. On 14 Jan 85, he was discharged from
the USMC Reserve and entered the Regular Air Force on 15 Jan 85 and
has remained on active duty.
According to AFPC/DPPAO, upon entry to active duty, the applicant’s
TAFMSD should have been completed in accordance with AFI 36-2604,
Service Dates and Dates of Rank, Table 1, Rule 1, giving the applicant
a TAFMSD of 08 Jul 84. Applicant’s TAFMSD was not verified when he
entered active duty in 1985. The error in his TAFMSD was not
discovered until he reached his 18-year mark of active duty. At 18
years of active duty, his service dates were verified. The member’s
TAFMSD was found to be in error upon verification of service dates.
The TAFMSD was corrected to 8 Jul 84 and the applicant was notified of
this correction.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAO, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response, the applicant indicated that, in his view, the
advisory opinion was based solely on black and white and was without
any humanitarian considerations. It seemed that the effect of this
action would have on him and his family was not even considered.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an injustice. After a thorough review of all the facts
and circumstances of this case, we are sufficiently persuaded that
corrective action is warranted regarding the applicant’s request that
his TAFMSD be changed to reflect 20 Jul 83 rather than 8 Jul 84. In
this respect, we note that at the time the applicant enlisted in the
Air Force on 15 Jan 85, after serving in the USMC Reserve, his TAFMSD
was incorrectly computed to be 20 Jul 83. Apparently, it remained
that way until he reached his 18th year of active duty. At this time,
a verification of his records was done and the error was discovered
and corrected. However, in our view, changing his TAFMSD after over
17 years of because of the Air Force’s erroneous computation is an
injustice to the applicant, as it could result in adverse
ramifications to his records through no fault of his own. It is
conceivable that any anticipated retirement plans the applicant may
have based on the earlier TAFMSD would be negatively effected. In
view of the above, we recommend that the applicant’s records be
corrected as set forth below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he enlisted in the
Regular Air Force on 18 Oct 81 and was honorably discharged on 5 Oct
82.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01910 in Executive Session on 28 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
Ms. Cheryl Dare, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPAO, dated 9 Jul 02, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, applicant, dated 12 Aug 02.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 02-01910
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that he enlisted in the
Regular Air Force on 18 Oct 81 and was honorably discharged on 5 Oct
82.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
On 5 Jul 84, he was found guilty by his commander who imposed the following punishment: Reduction from the grade of sergeant to the grade of airman first class, forfeiture of $50 a month for two months, and 30 days correctional custody but the execution of the portion of the punishment which provided for reduction to the grade of airman first class was suspended until 5 Jan 85. The reasons for the commander’s action were the incidents of misconduct for which he received the Article 15...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01069 INDEX NUMBER: 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) by the CY01B (3 Dec 01) central colonel selection board with the following corrections made to his Officer Selection Brief (OSB): 1. d. Insert “T” prefix on the DAFSC for the entries effective 17...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03593
His time in service dates were adjusted by the four months and five days of his break in service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAO recommended denial indicating that the time frame from when the applicant was discharged to the time he returned to active duty was less than two years, which entitled him to 50 percent of his time in grade as a staff sergeant. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03901
In a letter dated 18 Jan 06 (Exhibit C), HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 requested the applicant explain why she felt she should have been awarded the grade of captain when she entered active duty. The time between her commissioning as a lLT in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Nov 78 and when she entered active duty on 10 Jan 79 is not active service nor creditable as active service for retirement. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jan 06, w/atchs.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01323 INDEX CODE: 100.03, 100.06 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 2C be upgraded. In support of his request applicant has provided a letter from AFPC/DPPRRB, dated 24 Mar 00, announcing the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) decision to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03507
On 7 Oct 92, the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) denied the applicant’s request for upgrade of his discharge to honorable. They also noted applicant did not submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing and provided no other facts warranting an upgrade of the discharge. After careful consideration of the evidence of record, we found no evidence that the actions taken to effect the applicant’s discharge were improper or...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded, indicating that nothing can change the facts or the past. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...
HQ USAF/JAG states the applicant served exactly four years on active duty as an enlisted member. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). The applicant did not meet the requirement of having served on active duty as an enlisted member for over 4 years to be eligible to receive O-1E pay.
Air Force Regulation 36-89, Oct 77, stated eligibility criteria for promotion to captain as two years time in grade as a first lieutenant. A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and noted that the applicant was selected for promotion by the CY97A (3 Feb 97) lieutenant colonel selection board. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or...
AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00147
However, based upon the record and evidence provided by applicant, the Board finds the applicant's UOTHC discharge is too harsh and upgrades it to a General. The records indicated the applicant received an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC) discharge for misconduct, specifically, drug use. (Change Discharge to Honorable) Issue 1: I request that the "other than honorable" discharge from service dated 19971009 be upgraded to an honorable discharge.