Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03526
Original file (BC-2002-03526.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03526
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded the National Defense Service Medal (NDSM).

One  of  the  applicant’s  initial  requests  was  for  his  DD   Form   214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active  Duty)  to  be  amended  to
reflect the accurate Air  Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC),  2W131E,  Aircraft
Armament Systems, Apprentice, F-15, he performed in while  on  active  duty.
This request has been administratively corrected.  Therefore  no  action  by
this Board is required.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes that he should be awarded the NDSM based on  his  Delayed  Entry
Program (DEP) date, rather than the date he entered active duty.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his  DD Form  214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and  a  copy  of  his
Certificate of Training, dated 3 April 1997.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 24 January  1996  in  the
grade of airman basic for a period of four years.

According to the applicant’s DD Form 214,  Item  13,  he  received  the  Air
Force Training Ribbon.

The National Defense Service Medal (NDSM) was  awarded  for  the  periods  2
August 1990 through 30 November 1995 and 11 September 2001  through  a  date
to be determined.

On 4 August 1997 the applicant was honorably  discharged  in  the  grade  of
airman first  class,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-3212  (Disability,
Severance Pay).  He served a total of 1  year,  6 months,  and  11  days  of
total active military service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial.  They indicated  that  on  22 November  2002,
they informed the applicant that  the  NDSM  was  only  awarded  for  active
service and he was asked to withdraw his application.  He did  not  respond.
The enlistment into  the  DEP  does  not  constitute  active  service.   The
applicant is not eligible for any additional awards or decorations.

The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAC indicated  that  a  review  of  the  documents  provided  by  the
applicant substantiates his claim that item 11 does not  accurately  reflect
the AFSC in  which  he  performed  while  on  active  duty.   The  documents
indicate that  he  completed  course  J3ABR2W131E-003,  Apprentice  Aircraft
Armament Systems Specialist Course (F-15) PDS Code 279, 3 April  1997.   The
82nd TRW/TOR, Sheppard, TX,  verified  course  completion.   AFMAN  36-2108,
Enlisted Classification, 30 April 1996, reflects the mandatory training  for
award of AFSC 2W131E as completion  of  a  suffix  specific  basic  aircraft
armament   systems   course.    Applicant   completed   this    requirement.
Applicant’s personnel records also reflect that the period  of  service  for
AFSC 2W131 differs from the period indicated in item 11 of  the  applicant’s
DD Form 214.   Based on their review, the applicant’s AFSC  data,  item  11,
DD Form, 214, should be corrected  to  read:   2W131E  -  Aircraft  Armament
Systems, Apprentice, F-15, 8 months.

On 3 March 2003, AFPC/DPPRSP advised the  applicant  his  records  had  been
corrected to reflect the correct AFSC and he was  provided  a  new  DD  Form
214.

The evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 March 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   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 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 an error or an  injustice  warranting  award  of  the  National
Defense Service Medal (NDM).  The  applicant  contends  that  he  should  be
awarded the NDSM based on his Delayed Entry Program (DEP) date, rather  than
the date he  entered  active  duty.   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  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant was on active duty  from
24 January 1996 through 4 August 1997.  The two periods in  which  the  NDSM
was awarded were 2 August 1990 through 30 November  1995  and  11  September
2001 through a date to be determined and  time  spent  in  the  DEP  is  not
considered active duty.  Since the applicant was not on active  duty  during
the periods for which the NDSM was awarded, he  is  not  eligible  for  this
award.   Therefore, in the absence of 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 17 April 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member



The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2002-03526 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 October 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 4 February 2003, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 14 February 2003,
                   w/atchs.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 March 2003.




                                ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                                Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03764

    Original file (BC-2005-03764.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPPPR states that in accordance with DoD 1348.33-Manual, Chapter 4, “the JMUA, awarded in the name of the Secretary of Defense, is intended to recognize joint units and activities for meritorious achievement or service, superior to that which is normally, expected.” After consultation with the Joint Staff and researching DOD 1348.33-M Appendix C, DoD Activities Awarded the JMUA; and the Air Force Unit Awards Database their office located 2 awards of the JMUA to AFELM NATO AWACS E-3A for the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03640

    Original file (BC-2002-03640.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DPPAC evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 13 Dec 02, w/atch.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00156

    Original file (BC-2003-00156.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-00156 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, Item 11, Primary Specialty, be corrected to read “A11450 (Aircrew, Aircraft Loadmaster) and 47251C (Special Vehicle Mechanic, Materials...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01959

    Original file (BC-2005-01959.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01959 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 DECEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 2A771, Aircraft...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00615

    Original file (BC-2002-00615.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His records be corrected to reflect award of the Special Experience Identifier (SEI) for Stinger Missiles to Security Police Personnel, and the United States Air Force (USAF) Missile Badge. They indicated that the applicant was not eligible for any Navy marksmanship awards, as he was not on active duty with the Navy; he was in the Air Force. Since the applicant was on active duty in the Air Force, he would not be authorized to wear another service’s devices on awards earned while in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01576

    Original file (BC-2003-01576.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 15 August 2003, AFPC/DPPPRA advised the applicant that they verified his entitlement to the JSAM; however, he did not provide any documentation to substantiate his claim for the SAEMR. On 15 August 2003, AFPC/DPPPRA advised the applicant that he did not provide documentation to substantiate his claim that he is entitled to the SAEMR. There is no documentation in the applicant’s records to substantiate that he was awarded a PAFSC of 3P051.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00676

    Original file (BC-2007-00676.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    Air Force Instruction 36-3202, Separation Documents, 20 May 94, states that item 11 of the DD Form 214 will reflect the primary AFSC code (PAFSC) and all additional AFSCs in which the member served for one year or more, during member’s continuous active military service, and for each AFSC, the title with years and months of service. The Separation Program Designation (SPD) code issued in conjunction with his 18 June 2004 release from active duty is correct; however, a majority of the Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04047

    Original file (BC-2003-04047.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-04047 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The applicant did not perform any duties in AFSC 3A051. After a thorough review of the applicant’s records and the evidence provided it appears the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0101917

    Original file (0101917.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a legal review of the discharge case file, the wing deputy staff judge advocate, found it legally sufficient and recommended that the applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an entry-level separation. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant responded and submits three letters of reference and again states his desire to reenlist in the Air Force. Our finding in this regard is based on the fact that,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02532

    Original file (BC-2004-02532.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    If applicant is reawarded 3P0X1 as a secondary AFSC, he would receive supplemental promotion consideration in the 9A000 AFSC (retraining or pending retraining) beginning with cycle 03E5. Applicant requests his 3P051 AFSC be reinstated as a secondary AFSC and that his promotion to the rank of staff sergeant (SSgt) be effective the date of the 03E5 promotion cycle. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of...