Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00686
Original file (BC-2003-00686.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00686
            INDEX CODE:  112.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Home of Record (HOR) be corrected.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When she enlisted in the Air  Force,  she  was  instructed  by  the
recruiter to list her current residential address as  her  home  of
record (HOR).  She was not informed that she could have listed  her
original home address (family home address) prior to her entry into
military service as her HOR.  The lack of complete instructions led
her to believe that she had to list her residential address as  her
HOR instead of her family’s address.

In support of  her  appeal,  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  her
DD Form 1966/1 Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of  the
United States, which reflects her current address and her  home  of
record as the same location.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Extension A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force  on  4  Apr  96  for  a
period of four years in the grade of airman first class  (A1C/E-3).


Applicant’s DD  Form  4,  Enlistment/Reenlistment  Document,  Armed
Forces of  the  United  States,  reflects  an  enlistment  date  of
4 Apr 96 and her home of record as Landover MD.

Applicant enlisted in the  Air  Force  Reserve,  Obligated  Reserve
Section (ORS) on 23 Aug 01, for a period  of  eight  years  in  the
grade of staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5).  Her DD Form 4 reflects her HOR
as Laurel MD.

She is currently enrolled in the AFROTC program at  the  University
of Maryland.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFOATS/JA reviewed this application and recommended  denial.   They
state that  according  to  the  Joint  Federal  Travel  Regulations
(JFTR), Appendix A, HOR is defined as “The place  recorded  as  the
home of the  individual  when  commissioned,  appointed,  enlisted,
inducted, or ordered into a tour of active duty.”   Review  of  the
DD Form 1966, which was provided by the applicant,  shows  that  at
the time of completing the form, the applicant was residing at  the
recorded address.

At the time of her initial enlistment, applicant  was  residing  in
Landover, MD, which was recorded as the HOR.  At the  time  of  her
entry into  the  AFROTC  program,  applicant  was,  and  still  is,
residing at Laurel, MD.

When the applicant is commissioned, she will have  the  opportunity
to place a new HOR  on  her  commissioning  paperwork,  which  will
render this request moot.  She probably will not, however, be  able
to list Madrid as her HOR at that time either.

The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to  substantiate
her request and it does not appear that she  was  misinformed.   No
error on the part of the Air Force occurred.  The recruiter  listed
the applicant’s current address as her HOR because at the time  she
was residing at that address.

The HOR must reflect the applicant’s “…actual home  of  the  member
upon entering  upon  entering  the  service.”   The  only  way  the
applicant can have her HOR reflect Madrid is to enlist, commission,
be appointed, inducted, or ordered into a tour of active duty  from
such location.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at  Exhibit
C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant   submitted   a   personal   statement   explaining   the
circumstances  surrounding  her  citizenship  status  and  why  she
believes her HOR should be corrected.

In addition to her personal statement, applicant provided a copy of
her passport (Portugal) and copies of her marriage  certificate  in
English and Spanish.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________



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   their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has
not been the victim of an error or injustice.   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-2003-00686 in Executive Session  on  19  June  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFOATS/JA, dated 20 Mar 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Apr 03, w/atchs.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02408

    Original file (BC-2006-02408.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states through her grandfather she was medically qualified for a commission in the Air Force, based on the physical examination conduced on 16 January 2004. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Grandfather, undated.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04037

    Original file (BC-2012-04037.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04037 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her home of record (HOR) be changed to reflect an address in Florida (FL). We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of this case; however, she has not provided sufficient evidence which would lead us to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03053

    Original file (BC-2003-03053.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    She requested her home of record to be Chaffee MO upon enlistment. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that her home of record at the time of his entry on active duty was Chaffee, MO, rather than Oceanside, CA. ROSCOE HINTON, JR Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2003-03053 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01135

    Original file (BC-2004-01135.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of her appeal, applicant provides a letter from her detachment stating that she disclosed her illness and medications before attending field training, a letter from her psychiatrist, copy of an e-mail message, and a letter from her AFROTC commander. On 15 Jan 03, a DD Form 785 was completed disenrolling the applicant from the AFROTC program effective 31 Mar 03 for medical disqualification by reason of bi-polar depression and failure to maintain military retention standards. We...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01135

    Original file (BC-2006-01135.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. AFOATS/JA's complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPAO makes no recommendation regarding the pilot training slot as HQ AFROTC conducted that selection board and is outside the active duty process; however, they would recommend the applicant complete navigator training as she was assessed into the Air Force as a navigator. However, since commissioning, she has obtained waivers to correct her disqualifying...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018512

    Original file (20130018512.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states she was ordered to active duty from North Carolina where she resided in December 2006 to perform a contingency operations temporary tour of active duty (COTTAD) in support of Operation Noble Eagle with duty at the Pentagon. DFAS's multiple letters stated her claim for per diem for meals was not authorized since she resided within commuting distance to the Pentagon. She maintained residency in both a local address – her HOR in Maryland – and the residence in North...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03087

    Original file (BC-2003-03087.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    After reviewing the evidence of record provided, the majority of the Board is of the opinion that sufficient evidence does exist to support a finding that the applicant may not have been adequately advised by her recruiter regarding her Home of Record, which could have saved her a considerable amount of money during her do-it-your-self move. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02200

    Original file (BC-2004-02200.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02200 INDEX CODE: 108.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: Mr. Douglas H. Kohrt XXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records, specifically her DD Form 785, Record of Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training, Section IV, be changed from “Definitely Not Recommended” to “Highly...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01921

    Original file (BC-2004-01921.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01921 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her disenrollment from the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) program due to medical disqualification be voided. She never received adequate counsel as requested and never received a complete copy...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04042

    Original file (BC-2002-04042.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    SSgt --- correctly states the fact that since the time the AF Form 24 was signed, she has performed her duties as an officer in the Air Force and has been promoted to 1Lt. Again, this information does not accurately reflect her career as an officer in the Air Force and in no way should this information appear someday to a major’s board. After reviewing the evidence of record, which includes a statement from her commander, the Board believes that the entry in question was not relevant to...