RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-02045
INDEX CODE 110.02
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 214 reflect a narrative reason of “Completion of Required
Active Service” rather than “Non-Selection, Permanent Promotion,” and
award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion for major
for the second time in Sep 00. He was given a mandatory date of
separation of 30 Jun 01 in accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 632.
He was offered selective continuation through 18 years of service but
declined. He was honorably discharged in the grade of captain on 30
Jun 01 with 11 years, 5 months and 22 years of active service and
received approximately $57,400 in separation pay. The narrative reason
for discharge was “Non-Selection, Permanent Promotion.”
On 12 Jul 02, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA notified the applicant that his DD Form
214 had been administratively corrected to reflect receipt of the MSM
(Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ APFC/DPPRS notes that, although the applicant did not have a
remaining commitment, his reason for separation was based on his
nonselection and law, which requires separation no later than the last
day of the seventh month following board approval by the Assistant
Secretary of Defense. This takes precedence over any other reason for
separation/retirement. In retrospect, if the applicant had been
separated for “completion of required active service” as he requests,
his separation would have been considered voluntary and he would not
have received $57,400 in separation pay. Denial is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 26 Jul 02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The applicant was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. We note that the applicant’s
request to have his DD Form 214 reflect award of the MSM was
administratively accomplished. Therefore, the only issue remaining for
our consideration pertains to his request for a different narrative
reason. In accordance with statute, the applicant was given a
mandatory date of separation as a result of his two nonselections. He
was offered selective continuation, which would have gotten him to the
18-year point known as the retirement sanctuary and undoubtedly he
would have been allowed to serve until he became retirement eligible.
However, he declined. The applicant should not perceive his
nonselections as a negative or a hindrance in civilian life. The
extremely competitive nature of the selection process results in many
fine officers not being promoted. Further, if he had been separated
for the requested narrative reason, his separation would have been
considered voluntary and he would not have received over $57,000 in
separation pay. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air
Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered
either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 3 October 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair
Mr. George Franklin, Member
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02045 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149s (2), dated 18 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 12 Jul 02, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Jul 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.
WAYNE R. GRACIE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-04080
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-04080 INDEX CODE: 131.01 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the Calendar Year 2008A (CY08A) (P0608A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB), with inclusion of a new letter to the promotion board. The letter was...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of the board discrepancy report, dated 17 Nov 99 (Exhibit A). Even though the citations were not on file for the board, they were in evidence before the board in that they were reflected on the OSB. Since the board members were aware of the decorations, they were factored into the promotion evaluation.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 2 AFBCMR 98-00545 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 March 1998 for review and comment within 30 days. Essentially, applicant contends that as a result of errors in his records, the Calendar Year 1997 (CY97) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board was given an inaccurate impression of his record; however, after reviewing the evidence of record, we are...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00420
On 9 Apr 03, the applicant was awarded the contested AFCM 1OLC for the period 14 Feb 98 to 3 Jan 02, rather than 1 Dec 01, for meritorious service while assigned to the 86th Medical Squadron at Landstuhl, Germany. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR indicates since an IPCOT is not a condition for which an individual may be recommended for a decoration, it appears the recommending official submitted the applicant for an...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02883
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02883 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Professional Military Education (PME) recommendations on his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 19 Mar 94 and 25 Nov 94, be changed from Intermediate Service School (ISS) to Senior Service School (SSS). The...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03769
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03769 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 JUN 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rating on his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 19 May 2006, be changed from an overall “4” to a “5”; the endorsement level be upgraded to “Senior Rater Deputy”...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01809
DPPPR further states the 377th TCS did not receive the RVNGC w/P during the time the applicant served in Vietnam. He requests recheck be done regarding the unit number (Exhibit E). In this respect, the Board notes that during his service in Vietnam the applicant was not assigned to a unit that received the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00628
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00628 INDEX CODE: 128.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) in his new career field (3E0X2) rather than the SRB from his previous career field (3E5X1). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS...
The applicant was discharged with a general characterization of service on 5 May 72 in the grade of airman. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS provided their rationale for recommending denial. After a thorough review of the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s general discharge should be upgraded to honorable.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00367
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00367 INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY02B Central Major Selection Board (P0402B), with his Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 10 June 2002, and his...