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
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00493
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
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
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
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
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
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....