RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03792
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge date of 28 February 1979 be changed to 15 March 1979.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Without being consulted, base personnel changed his discharge date to 28
February 1979. When he protested they refused to make the correction. He
was recently informed that it was possible to correct this relatively minor
mistake.
The applicant provides no supporting documentation. The applicant’s
submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 28 February 1979, the applicant was relieved from active duty and
transferred to the Retired Reserve effective 1 March 1979. His assignment
to the Retired Reserve Section was in the grade of senior master sergeant
with a date of rank of 1 September 1978. He was credited with 26 years, 5
months and 16 days of total active duty service for retirement and for
basic pay.
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:
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied. DPPRRP states that the
applicant submitted a voluntary application for retirement requesting an
effective date of separation of 28 February 1979, with retirement to be
effective 1 March 1979. Section 8301, Title 5, United States Code
stipulates the effective date of all nondisability retirements as the first
day of the month following the month in which retirement would otherwise be
effective. By law, he could not request a date of separation of 15 March
1979.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He recalls requesting via a formal military letter, a discharge date not
earlier than 1 March 1979. During his retirement interview, he was assured
that his discharge date would be after 14 March 1979. He has no evidence
to prove what happened except the signed retirement waiver dated 8 December
1978, requesting he be retired not earlier than 1 March 1979.
Applicant’s letter, with attachment, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and
the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his release date from
active duty of 28 February 1979 should be changed to 15 March 1979.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the evidence of record or the rationale provided by the Air Force.
Bound by Section 8301, Title 5, United States Code, it appears that
responsible officials applied appropriate standards in effecting his
release from active duty and his subsequent transfer to retirement
effective 1 March 1979. Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the
Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision,
that the applicant has not been a victim of an error. Therefore, we find
no basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 AFBCMR
Docket Number 02-03792 in Executive Session on 19 March 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Nov 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 20 Dec 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jan 03.
ROSCOE HINTON JR
Panel Chair
At the time of his retirement, he had completed a total of 20 years and 29 days of active service. 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 AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied. However, we agree with the opinion and...
He believes that this extra percentage for receipt of the Airman’s Medal for heroism might have been available at the time of his retirement but the medal was not on his DD Form 214. On 23 August 2002, the Personnel Council, Air Force Decorations Board, reviewed and denied applicant’s request for 10% increase in retired pay. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00060
At the time of his discharge, there were no provisions of law that allowed for retirement with less than 20 years of active service. AFPC/DPPRRP complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s spouse reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that the discharge processing was probably handled properly, however, there has been a grave injustice committed...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03425
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03425 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: By amendment, his effective date of advancement to the grade of master sergeant on the retired list be changed to his original date of advancement to the grade of master sergeant. Effective 6 Oct 00, the applicant was advanced to the grade of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01344
The discharge action against the applicant was suspended on 11 Oct 02 in order to process the applicant’s retirement request. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE INFORMATION: SAFPC previously considered and recommended denial of the applicant’s request to retire. 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 office of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03914
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He has just recently discovered an attachment to his Airman’s Medal, special order GB----, dated 2 Sep 94, which was completed two days after said order, which states, “The Secretary of the Air Force has considered this individual for an additional 10 percent retirement pay in connection with the act of heroism that warranted this decoration. Review by the Secretary of the Air Force determined that...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00293
We do not take issue with the applicant’s contention her divorce decree ordered her deceased former husband to provide former spouse coverage for her under the SBP, but he did not do so. However, since neither the applicant nor her deceased former husband took the necessary actions to ensure she was provided former spouse coverage under the SBP within the one-year period in which they could have done so, it appears that the applicant has no legal entitlement to the relief sought. It...
There were no provisions in the law at that time to notify spouses if the servicemember did not elect coverage. There is no evidence that the servicemember elected SBP during any of the authorized open enrollments. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03208 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable. In a legal review of the discharge case file, the staff judge advocate found it legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00412
However, the BOI found he had committed the other offenses and recommended the applicant receive a general discharge from the Air Force. He had seven days time lost due to civilian confinement. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/JA recommends the applicant’s requests be denied.