RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02052
INDEX CODE: 135.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be awarded military credit, in the form of 115 points, for
completing technical training at Brooks AFB, TX during the period
12 July 1999 through 3 November 1999.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He has always felt that he should have been awarded points for the
time he was at military training. He contends also that because of
the training he attended he missed several drill (Unit Training
Assemblies - UTA’s) periods.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of the
special order that ordered him to attend the training, diplomas from
the particular class he attended, and a copy of his Point Credit
History/Summary.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, currently a 1st Lieutenant, is serving as an Individual
Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Reservist with the Air Force Reserve
(AFRES) at Nellis AFB, Nevada. In July 1999, he was ordered to attend
military training for Bioenvironmental Engineering. He attended the
training as an Air National Guard Technician from 12 July 1999 through
3 November 1999. He has over 13 years of combined active and reserve
service both enlisted and commissioned.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPP reviewed this application and recommended denial. DPP states
that the applicant attended the school in a civilian (Air National
Guard Technician) status that precluded him from receiving federal
compensation from two sources for the same time period. DPP provides
clarification by noting that the applicant did not qualify for points
for the training for two reasons: One, he would be in a dual federal
status on the same days and two, he would be receiving dual
compensation for the same period of work.
ARPC/DPP’s complete 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 July 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 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. The applicant simply cannot receive
compensation (points or pay), from two Federal sources for the same
effort. 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-
2003-02052 in Executive Session on 19 August 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Member
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 2003, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 7 Jul 03.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jul 03.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03370
Points for participation can only be credited for the dates the inactive duty was performed. Correction to the advisory is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated that although the Reserve Order DA-01859 does assign him to the 514th AMW as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) he was in fact hired as a full-time Air Reserve Technician (ART). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2000-02768A
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 October 2002, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered applicant’s request that the Article 15 imposed on 16 February 1994, and the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 April 1998, be removed from his records and he be sent to a Replacement Training Unit (RTU) to be re-qualified and reinstated in an active status as an Air National Guard (ANG) fighter pilot in...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02812
Her record shows she completed 15 years, 10 months, and 21 days of honorable federal service as of 18 August 1993. Regarding early qualification for retired pay for members who were medically disqualified for duty, a member must have completed at least 15 years, but less than 20 years, of satisfactory federal service and been medically disqualified for military service on or after 5 October 1994. In this case she would have been eligible for a Reserve retirement at age 60 as she would have...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02538-2
On his request, dated 31 May 06, the applicant requests his records be reviewed to determine if he was penalized six months of active service based on being inadvertently discharged while in Palace Option status. The retention/retirement date of 30 September was reestablished in 1997 and the points were realigned to the 10 May retention/retirement date (based on his commissioning service date). Exhibit I. Addendum to the Recording of Proceedings, dated 26 Aug 05, with Exhibits.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-03323
Members of the Board Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, and Ms. Jan Mulligan, considered this application on 18 November 2004. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, ARPC/DPP, dtd 8 Nov 04 AFBCMR BC-2004-03323 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of...
For a reserve member to be credited with a year of satisfactory service, 50 retirement points are required. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant contends that he performed numerous days of creditable service that were not documented for which he received no credit. Based on the evidence of record and that verified by HQ Air Reserve Personnel Center...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01357
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His discharge records should indicate the rank of second lieutenant. After reviewing the applicant’s records, there is no indication he was ever commissioned as an officer in either the Air Force or the Air Force Reserves. Therefore, 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01310
His next seven years of service were not considered satisfactory years of service and did not count towards a Reserve retirement. DPP’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Applicant agrees the only issue to resolve is that of whether or not 352 days of satisfactory service constitutes a satisfactory year of service or not. Therefore, since the applicant had...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01574
His records were then corrected to reflect he was appointed in the AFRES on 9 November 1996 with an assignment in the Non-Obligated, Non-Participating Ready Reserve Personnel Section (NNRPS). The DPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response to DPP’s statement that he had not actively applied for AFRES positions following his discharge from extended active, he submits copies of e-mail...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03690
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03690 INDEX CODE: 129.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 JUNE 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retired pay be recalculated to reflect his Air National Guard service he performed after retirement. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT...