RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00460
INDEX CODE: 102.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS:
Consideration for a Regular commission since he was an Officer
Training School (OTS) Distinguished Graduate (DG).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He graduated second in his OTS class (honor graduate); however, this
information was not reflected in his military record. After
discovering this omission, he took action to have his records
corrected to reflect his status as a DG. In accordance with AFI 36-
2013, OTS should have nominated him for a Regular commission since he
was in the top ten percent of his OTS class.
In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his graduation
certificates denoting DG and honor graduate status, extract from AFI
36-2013, and copies of his preselection brief and data verification
brief. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date
(TAFCSD) is 9 Apr 99. He is currently serving on active duty in the
grade of first lieutenant (O2), with an effective date and date of
rank of 9 Apr 01.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPOO recommends the application be denied. DPPPOO states
that Congress mandated that, effective 1 Oct 96, all officers must
enter active duty with a Reserve commission. Further, Congress
mandated that Regular appointments could not be granted before an
officer completed one year of active commissioned service. In Aug 94,
when the AFI 36-2013 was published, OTS DGs were eligible for a
Regular commission. However, the 1994 version of AFI 36-2610 included
a statement that, after 30 Sep 96, no OTS DGs would receive a Regular
appointment. Based on the information the applicant read in AFI 36-
2013, it appeared he should have been considered for a Regular
commission as an OTS DG. However, when the law changed in 1996, OTS
DGs were no longer considered for a Regular commission and as stated
in the AF/DP message, beginning in FY98 Regular commissions would only
be tendered with promotion to major and above. DPPPOO believes that
granting relief to the applicant would not be fair or equitable to all
the other OTS DGs that have been commissioned as Reserve officers
since the change in law. If the applicant is selected for promotion
to major, he will be offered a Regular commission at that time. The
HQ AFPC/DPPPOO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 14
Mar 03 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 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
office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. In
this respect, we note that, due to the 1996 change in law, Officer
Training School (OTS) Distinguished Graduates (DGs) are commissioned
as Reserve officers when they enter active duty. In view of the above
and absent evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 29 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00460.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, dated 7 Mar 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
Based on their findings and the evidence provided by the applicant, DPPPOC believes that there were miscommunications among the personnel at applicant’s ROTC Detachment. Also, the opportunity exists for him to receive a RegAF Appointment if selected for promotion to major and his record reflects his ROTC DG status. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01399 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Letter of Evaluation (LOE), dated 3 Feb 96, become a permanent addendum to his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 30 Nov 96; his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), dated 19 May 98, be corrected to reflect his Date of Separation as Indefinite and any reference to a retirement date...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00606
Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for the Chief of Staff signed by the Executive Director or his designee. Members of the Board Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, and Mr. Laurence M. Groner considered this application on 27 March 2003. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, dtd 14 Mar 03, with attachment AFBCMR 03-00606 INDEX CODE:...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03853
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004- 03853 INDEX CODE 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 19 Jun 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the Calendar Year 2004B (CY04B) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Central Selection Board (CSB) include his current duty entry, “1 Jul 03 - Mil Dep & Subscale Tgts...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00564
INDEX CODE: 131.10 AFBCMR BC-2003-00564 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...
His Officer Selection Record (OSR) and Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) (6 Nov 00) Colonel Dental Corps (DC) Central Selection Board be corrected to include his certificate of board certification (which has since been corrected), previous Army duty history, Professional Military Education (PME) (which has since been corrected) and decorations. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPPOO also reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1999-00282
After being informed of the requirements to change her HOR, the applicant did not provide documents of legal residency or proof that she maintains residency in CA. Should the applicant provide additional documents reflecting California as her legal residence prior to her enlistment; i.e., school records and/or a birth certificate, the Board may be willing to reconsider her application. We therefore adopt the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility and conclude...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01021
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01021 INDEX CODE: 131.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His citation for the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM) be filed in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) and the board discrepancy report be removed. Central boards evaluate service members’ entire OSR. After...
The flying status section of the applicant’s 21 Aug 00 Officer Pre- selection Brief (OPB) for the CY00A board reflected “CONDL HDIP NON RATED-ACT AIRCREW MEMBER” (Conditional Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay, Non-rated, Active Aircrew Member). A copy of the letter and Instruction Sheet is provided at Exhibit C. The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion by the CY00A board, which convened on 28 Nov 00. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the...
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from the Tactics Officer, Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), indicating that through no fault of his own, the AFCM, 3 OLC, on the applicant was lost in the personnel system. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and states that OPRs are due for file at AFPC no later than 60 days following the closeout date of the report. A complete...