RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02630
INDEX CODE: 121.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Thirty-one (31) days of leave be restored.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
If he wasn’t going Permanent Change of Station (PCS) to Turkey without
the family he would not have taken the 31 days of leave. Three days
prior to port call, the PCS orders were cancelled.
Applicant provided a copy of his cancelled PCS orders.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A printout of the applicant’s Master Military Pay Account (MMPA)
reflects he used leave on two separate occasions, 23 December 2002 - 3
January 2003 (12 days) and 9-26 June 2003 (18 days) for a total of 30
days used in FY 2003.
On 2 January 2003, applicant was selected for assignment to Incirlik
Turkey. His report not later than date (RNLTD) was 10 May 2003. On 5
February 2003, he requested and was approved for a month change of his
RNLTD from 30 May to 30 June 2003. His wife was pregnant and was due
in May 2003. On 2 May 2003, he started leave and stayed on leave
until 3 June 2003. On 3 June 2003, 56MSS/DPMAR requested a delay in
his reporting to 10 December 2003 based on AAC 14 (material witness).
The assignment required PRP certification, however, on 4 June 2003,
applicant’s assignment was officially cancelled based on PRP
decertification. On 4 June 2003, the assignment was subsequently
cancelled and another volunteer was selected based on an immediate
need in the assignment area.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSFM states that the first period of leave, for 12 days, started
prior to the applicant’s initial selection for the assignment to
Incirlik AB. His second period of leave, for 18 days, started after
his assignment was cancelled and is coded in the MMPA as emergency
leave and was started five days after his assignment cancellation. It
appears the applicant used leave for a reason unrelated to his
assignment. Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 24 October 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and response 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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the 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 this application, BC-
2003-02630, in Executive Session on 4 December 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Jul 03, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSFM, dated 15 Oct 03, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Oct 03.
CATHLYNN SPARKS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01850
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/A4LE recommends denial, indicating the applicant did not obtain prior approval to self-procure travel during his PCS travel. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02746
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSFM recommends the applicant’s request be denied. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03479
AFBCMR BC-2003-03479 INDEX CODE: 121.03 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: SSAN: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff 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 accompanying Memorandum for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01244
His wife and son remained hospitalized until 20 September 2002 and the applicant was ordered to return to Malstrom AFB on 21 September 2002. Consequently, the applicant could have been authorized PTDY for the period that his wife was hospitalized: 4 through 15 July 2002. MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant Secretary AFBCMR BC-2003-01244 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01001
The IPCOT was never filed; therefore, the reason for his extension does not exist and should be canceled. His request was approved on 24 May 2005 and his date of separation was extended from 19 August 2006 to 19 January 2007. This is evidence enough the IPCOT was not approved and at that time (within 30 days) the applicant should have requested the 5-month extension be canceled.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00836
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the applicant’s request be denied, and states, in part, the applicant was deployed in support of ONW and OEF, while assigned to Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, from December 2000 to March 2002. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Under the heading...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00288
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She received an assignment notification to Incirlik ABS, Turkey, and was advised that she would have to extend for 14 months to obtain retainability for this assignment. On 15 August 2003 the applicant reenlisted in the United States Air Force for a period of 4 years and 18 months. DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01296
His original reporting date was 31 Dec 01 which required a DOS of 16 Jan 04. PCS retainability requirements are determined by the assignment RNLTD. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01114
Her overseas duty history was not on her OSB when the CY02B lieutenant colonel board met; however, her current duty has since been updated and does reflect completion of the overseas assignment to Turkey. The DPAMF2 evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial. DPPPO states that completion of training courses are not reflected on OSBs; however, a training report filed in her Officer Selection Record (OSR) documented her attendance and completion of the course in 1991.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01295
Her original reporting date was 31 Dec 01 which required a DOS of 16 Jan 04. PCS retainability requirements are determined by the assignment RNLTD. _________________________________________________________________ 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...