Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01764
Original file (BC-2002-01764.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01764
            INDEX CODE:135.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His personnel record reflect satisfactory participation  in  the  Air  Force
Reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  not  an  unsatisfactory  participant.   He  received  an  Honorable
Discharge from the  Air  Force  Reserve  because  he  did  not  successfully
complete technical school.  He never missed any scheduled  drills  while  he
was an active reservist.  He was unaware of this discrepancy in  his  record
until being denied education benefits.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  submits  an  email  from  the  Navy
detailing the reason he is being denied Montgomery GI Bill-Selected  Reserve
(MGIB-SR) benefits.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 13 February  1992  for  a
period of 6 years.  Following his successful completion  of  basic  military
and technical training, he was assigned to an active Reserve  position.   He
earned satisfactory years  of  Federal  service  for  the  Retirement  Years
(RYEs) ending 12 February 1993, 12 February 1994 and 12 February 1995.   His
records reflect he did not participate after 8 January 1995 and, on  26  May
1995, he was relieved from his Reserve assignment and transferred  to  ARPC,
Obligated Reserve Section (ORS).  He was relieved  from  ORS  and  honorably
discharged from the Air Force Reserve, effective 12 February 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPM  recommends  the  application  be  denied.   DPM  states  that  the
applicant was reassigned to ARPC for unsatisfactory participation  effective
26 May 95.  Based on documents provided he did not make an effort to  excuse
his absences nor did he request correction to his records  until  he  joined
the Navy Reserve on 13 February 2002, nearly 7 years  from  initially  being
terminated from the program.  AFRC/DPM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFRC/DPT recommends the application be denied.  DPT states that  entitlement
to MGIB-SR (Selected Reserve) benefits shall be  suspended  on  the  date  a
service member fails to participate satisfactorily as determined by  Command
authority.  Failure to participate satisfactorily means failure  to  fulfill
the contractual obligation or service agreement as a service member  of  the
Selected Reserve.  In addition, members are authorized  one  12-month  break
during the 10-year window of MGIB eligibility.  This break is an  authorized
non-availability.   The  member  may  regain  eligibility  for  MGIB-SR   if
reaffiliation with the Selected Reserve occurs  within  1  year  and  member
reenlists or extends for the period  of  time  not  actively  participating.
The applicant was inactive for almost 5 years.  This break in service  again
renders him ineligible for MGIB benefits based on the fact he  was  out  for
more than 12 months.  AFRC/DPT complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 2 August 2002, a complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded
to the applicant for review and response.  As of this date, no response  has
been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law  or
regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to  demonstrate  the
existence of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant’s
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  offices  of  primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion
that the applicant has not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in  this
application.
4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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 30 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

              Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Panel Chair
              Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
              Mr. Mike Novel, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 February 2002 w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 17 July 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRC/DPT, dated 27 March 2002
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 August 2002.





                                   LAWRENCE R. LEEHY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201764

    Original file (0201764.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01764 INDEX CODE:135.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His personnel record reflect satisfactory participation in the Air Force Reserve. AFRC/DPM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFRC/DPT recommends the application be denied. _________________________________________________________________ The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200541

    Original file (0200541.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00541 INDEX CODE: 135.03 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was not an unsatisfactory driller in the Air Force Reserve (AFR). On 5 Mar 95, the applicant was terminated from the AFR for unsatisfactory participation. The member's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01526

    Original file (BC-2005-01526.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Following an eight-year break in service, he reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve into a different Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) than in his previous enlistment. DPM states the applicant was approved for a reenlistment bonus on 23 July 1995; however, he requested to be reassigned to a non-participating status during the second year of his reenlistment for personal reasons. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0000846

    Original file (0000846.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Available documentation indicated that the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Dec 88 in the grade of airman for a period of six years. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s staff request, the Directorate of Military Law, AFRC/JAJM, reviewed this application and recommended denial. JAJM indicated that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2000-02768A

    Original file (BC-2000-02768A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 October 2002, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered applicant’s request that the Article 15 imposed on 16 February 1994, and the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 April 1998, be removed from his records and he be sent to a Replacement Training Unit (RTU) to be re-qualified and reinstated in an active status as an Air National Guard (ANG) fighter pilot in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04010

    Original file (BC-2011-04010.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPTS recommends denial. To verify and ensure all possible participation was captured and recorded on the AF Form 526, ARPC obtained pay records which correspond exactly to the dates and number of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800509

    Original file (9800509.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00509 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an Air Force Reserve retirement based on 20 satisfactory years of service. A memorandum, dated 18 Dec 97, indicated that the applicant, with an expiration term of service (ETS) of 12 Dec 97, had failed to reenlist and that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00509

    Original file (BC-1998-00509.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00509 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an Air Force Reserve retirement based on 20 satisfactory years of service. A memorandum, dated 18 Dec 97, indicated that the applicant, with an expiration term of service (ETS) of 12 Dec 97, had failed to reenlist and that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9702392

    Original file (9702392.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 1 August 1994, he was detailed by Captain M--- to return to light duty until 1 January 1995 at which time this restriction was to expire. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Military Personnel Division, Directorate of Personnel, AFRC/DPM, reviewed the application and states that although applicant's request for correction of military records contains no documentation of his placement on "light duty," it is highly likely that his active duty treating physician may have erroneously given him...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0101282

    Original file (0101282.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Based on there being no indication from the Air Force Reserve that it gave advance notice to the applicant, and based on evidence presented by the applicant, and in the absence of a basis to question the integrity of this individual, we recommend that any doubt be resolved in favor of the applicant and conclude that the reason for his assignment to ARPC should be changed. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 6 August 2001. JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel...