RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00468
INDEX CODE: 102.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The starting date of his service commitment be changed.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While he incurred a six-year service commitment to the Air Force (he
elected to fulfill the commitment in the Air National Guard (ANG), his
service commitment date should be the date of his commissioning (May
1997) and not the date he began service with the ANG: February 1998.
In support of his appeal, he has provided a significant amount of
supporting material. His submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant attended college under an ROTC scholarship and graduated
in May 1997. The applicant incurred an 8-year service commitment as a
result of the scholarship wherein he agreed to the Military Service
Obligation (MSO) by signing AF Form 1056.
On 16 May 1997, applicant was appointed as a Reserve of the Air Force
in the grade of 2nd Lieutenant and assigned to the Obligated Reserve
Section (ORS) of the Ready Reserve to begin fulfilling his 8-year MSO
(which would be fulfilled in May 2005). On 9 June 1997, the applicant
applied for reassignment to the Tennessee Air National Guard (TN ANG).
His application was approved on 13 June 1997 and on 9 December 1997,
applicant signed an ANG service agreement for a 4-year commitment
beginning on his date of appointment. On 16 January 1998, applicant
was approved, by HQ ANG/MPPSO, for appointment in the TN ANG as a 2nd
Lieutenant. On 28 February 1998, Special Order AB 70 was published
wherein the applicant began fulfilling his 4-year obligation to the TN
ANG which would expire in February 2002.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPA recommends denial. DPA notes that the applicant incurred an
8-year service obligation (not 6 years as the applicant states in his
letter) that he began to fulfill on 16 May 1997. Consequently,
his MSO is 15 May 2005.
DPA notes that the applicant was released from a 4-year active duty
obligation with the Air Force to serve in the ANG as evidenced by the
AF Form 1288 indorsed by Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) on 13 June
1997. DPA notes also that the applicant incurred a 4-year service
obligation with the ANG effective 28 February 1998 that made his
MSO for the ANG 27 February 2002, which he has fulfilled.
Notwithstanding the fact that the ANG obligation has been met, the
applicant still has until 15 May 2005 to fulfill his original service
obligation to the Air Force.
DPA addresses the applicant’s concerns about the EDCSA date by stating
that the EDCSA has nothing to do with applicant’s MSO but only
signifies the effective date of assignment to the ANG.
DPA’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7
March 2003 for review and comment 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 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
office 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. The record seems imminently clear that the
applicant incurred a military service obligation date of 15 May 2005
irrespective of any other dates listed in his records. Therefore, in
the absence of 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00468 in Executive Session on 17 July 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
Ms. Sharon Seymour, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, , dated 27 Feb 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
PATRICIA D. VESTAL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02302
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02302 INDEX CODE: 100.03 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 January 2009 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Effective Date of Change of Strength Accountability (EDCSA) date be changed from 15 January 2006 to 13 February 2006. It is important to note that his first...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD), Total Years Service Date (TYSD), Pay Date, and Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) are in error. With his five years in the active Air Force, he had almost eighteen years of military service when he was informed in Jan 00, that he would be discharged immediately. There was no evidence that the applicant was informed by ARPC of the implications of his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009303
The applicant's DA Form 597-3 also shows he understood and agreed that once he became obligated and was disenrolled from the ROTC Program for breach of contractual terms or any other disenrollment criteria established then or in the future by Army regulations incorporated in his contract, he was subject to: a. being ordered to active duty as an enlisted Soldier for a period of not more than 4 years if he failed to complete the ROTC Program. The evidence of record partially supports the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01077
After finishing the lengthy process of withdrawing from HPSP in order to go active, he was informed that he was not qualified for the BSC and was presented a bill for HPSP recoupment. On 24 November 2004, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council ordered the applicant be honorably discharged and to reimburse the United States Government for the funds expended on his education through the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01821
The DFAS-DE/POCT evaluation is at Exhibit D. Pursuant to the Board’s request, USAF/JAA reviewed the application and states that the applicant entered into an Army Senior ROTC Scholarship contract on or about 16 November 1998. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority determined that he was allowed to serve...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003992C070206
The applicant graduated from the Air Force Academy and was commissioned as a second lieutenant on 28 May 2003 with a concurrent call to active duty and is currently serving on active duty in the USAF in the rank of first lieutenant. Although the applicant has not contended that he was unaware of the conditions of his contract, the evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant understood the conditions of his ROTC contract, whereas he could elect to repay his scholarship debt in lieu...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090017778
In support of this request, the applicant provides copies of * a self-authored letter to DFAS * a letter to him from the Department of the Treasury Financial Management Service, Birmingham, AL * a Marine Corps Total Force System (MCTFS) Basic Individual Record * a NAVMC Form 118(3) (Chronological Record) * a Graduation Certificate from the U.S. Army Field Artillery School * USMC Permanent Change of Station orders assigning him to the Basic Officer Leaders Course * USMC Orders to active duty...
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98- 00468 COUNSEL : NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her grade at the time she enlisted in the Air National Guard be changed to Airman. Her request was denied because the college transcript from the college was dated 20 January 1998, which is after her date of enlistment. However, she has provided a copy of her college transcript and at the time of her enlistment she...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013131C071029
The Army Senior ROTC Scholarship Cadet Contract entered into by the applicant on 5 December 1994, specified, in Item 3-d, that the applicant would be obligated to serve two, three, or four years on active duty as a commissioned officer in the United States Army as prescribed by relevant Army regulations based on the needs of the Army, followed by service in the Reserve Components (RC) until the remainder of her 8-year MSO had been served. On 7 January 2001, upon completion of 4 years and 1...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02395
Applicant’s NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, reflects that he received a general discharge on 31 May 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, para 3.21.3.2 (Misconduct - Drug Abuse). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ANG/DPFP recommends denial. 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 National Guard...