Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01000
Original file (BC-2003-01000.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC 2003-01000
            INDEX CODE:  128.10

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reimbursed $635.94 for a debt he incurred as a result of  serving  two
days past his discharge date.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Applicant states that he was on an active  duty  tour  through  30 September
2002, which  he  completed.   His  MPF  relieved  him  from  assignment  and
honorably discharged him effective  28 September  2002.   As  a  result,  he
incurred a $635.95 debt payment despite having served through  30  September
2002.  His MPF supervisor failed to inform him that he should have  had  his
orders curtailed on 27 September 2002,  thereby  preventing  an  overpayment
and suffering the financial loss.  When the MPF supervisor  was  confronted,
he flat out denied failure to provide him with adequate information.

In support of his request, applicant provided copies of his  travel  orders,
travel voucher, and leave and earnings statement.  His  complete  submission
is attached at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, applicant was serving  with  the  New  Jersey
Air National Guard in the grade of lieutenant colonel.

Special Order No: 14, National Guard Bureau, State of New Jersey,  dated  21
September 2001, ordered applicant to active duty for the  period  1  October
2001 through 30 September 2002.

On 20 July 2002,  he  submitted  a  request  for  retirement  based  on  his
mandatory separation  date  of  30  September  2002.   He  requested  to  be
transferred to the Retired Reserve by completing AF  Form  131,  Application
for Transfer to the Retired Reserve.  The AF Form  131  indicated  that  the
applicant would be discharged on 28 September 2002  and  transferred  to  HQ
Air Reserve Personnel Center on 29 September  2002,  for  placement  on  the
retired reserve list on 30 September 2002.

Applicant received active duty pay for the period 28  September  through  30
September 2002; therefore, he incurred a debt of $635.94.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI states that they contacted New Jersey  ANG
for information surrounding applicant’s  claim  that  the  MPF  should  have
informed him of the need to have his  Title  10  tour  orders  curtailed  on
27 September  2002.   According  to  New  Jersey  ANG,  the  issue  of   the
applicant’s orders and pay recoupment did not come up until 4 December  2002
when he contacted the MPF via E-mail requesting to have his  orders  amended
and sent to his finance office.  Since the MPF did not cut his orders,  they
were unaware that he was serving on active  duty  and  therefore  unable  to
advise him of the need  to  have  his  orders  curtailed.   The  applicant’s
orders were cut by his unit, the 108th Aircraft Generation Squadron.

DPPI also states that although  applicant’s  orders  were  published  on  21
September 2001 with an effective date of 1 October 2001,  he  completed  and
signed his AF Form 131 on 20 July 2002, which  specifically  stated  in  the
remarks section that he would be honorably discharged from  the  NJ  ANG  on
28 September 2002, transferred to HQ ARPC on 29 September  2002  and  placed
on  the  retired  reserve  list  on  30  September  2002.   Based  on   this
information, applicant was made aware of the actions  that  needed  to  take
place prior to his mandatory separation date and should not  have  performed
duties past 27 September 2002.

The ANG/DPPI 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  11
June 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.  The applicant  was  ordered  to  serve  an
active   duty   tour   through   30 September   2002.    However,   he   was
administratively relieved of his duties, effective 28 September 2002,  based
on his projected retirement, which was effective 30 September  2002.   As  a
result, he was overpaid for the  period  of  28  -  30  September  2002  and
incurred a debt of $634.94.  We note  the  applicant's  contention  that  he
served between 28 - 30  September  2002;  however,  evidence  has  not  been
provided which would lead us to believe that he  actually  reported  in  and
performed his assigned duties during that period.  In the  absence  of  such
evidence, we do not  believe  favorable  consideration  of  his  request  is
warranted.  If he were to provide such evidence,  we  would  be  willing  to
reconsider his application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue  involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
01000 in Executive Session on 29 Jul 03, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. John L. Robuck, Member
      Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Mar 03 .
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 3 Jun 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jun 03.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00493

    Original file (BC-2003-00493.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting changes to the applicant’s reenlistment eligibility. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case to include his assertion that he was forced to retire early as his ex- wife was also a member of the SC ANG. However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National Guard office of primary responsibility and adopt their...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-02537

    Original file (BC-2002-02537.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A request to retire (Temporary Early Retirement Authority – TERA) should have been approved by the Air National Guard (ANG) and the U.S. Air Force. His application to retire early under TERA was disapproved and he subsequently accepted an SSB as a result of an involuntary RIF action. The DPPI statement “116th Wing commander elected to fund the new CM position and according to Georgia (ANG) the applicant did not apply for the position when the vacancy was announced.” He began terminal leave...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02183

    Original file (BC-2003-02183.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 129.02 AFBCMR BC-2003-02183 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03714

    Original file (BC-2003-03714.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Because the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and personnel at his unit miscalculated his total years service date (TYSD), and did not review his application prior to his appointment, he was not given the correct information on which to base his decision regarding when to be appointed. ANG/DPPI’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01957

    Original file (BC-2003-01957.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 129.02 AFBCMR BC-2003-01957 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01468

    Original file (BC-2003-01468.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 100.03 AFBCMR BC-2003-01468 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | Bc-2002-03758

    Original file (Bc-2002-03758.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The physical defect or conditions must render the member unfit for duty, and their military career must have been cut short due to the service connected disability. Medical records show that the applicant was treated for various medical conditions throughout his military career. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03794

    Original file (BC-2003-03794.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The above notwithstanding, the Air National Guard OPR has found that, based on the quarter hours she had earned at the time of her enlistment, she should have been enlisted as an Airman and not an Airman Basic. We agree with their finding and therefore recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below. MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant Secretary AFBCMR BC-2003-03794 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-03958

    Original file (BC-2003-03958.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He believes he should not have been demobilized, or if demobilized, he should have remained in an active duty status via mandays until such time as his medical case had been resolved. He is confused by SAF/MR’s denial of his extension request after correction of his profile to 4T in that he was injured while on Title 10 orders. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03278

    Original file (BC-2003-03278.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ANGI 36-3001 also gives information about how to extend members every 30 to 60 days during this time period. In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, orders placing her on active duty, extending her active duty for 13 days, and placing her on active duty for a month to perform a line of duty (LOD) determination. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A....