ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03571
INDEX CODE: 110.02
COUNSEL: STUART L. SHAPIRO HEARING DESIRED: NONE
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that he be
reinstated in the Regular Air Force.
_______________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 31 December 1992, the applicant separated from the Regular Air Force
under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1174a, Special Separation Benefits (SSB)
program. He signed an enlisted SSB agreement on 13 July 1992, which
contained the required statements of law and various informational data.
He subsequently applied for and received Veterans Administration (VA)
disability compensation. On 27 June 1996, he was advised by the VA of the
law, which required the VA to withhold as many dollars of compensation as
he received in separation pay.
On 21 August 1998, the applicant’s request that he be reinstated to active
duty was considered and denied by the Board. For an accounting of the
facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request, and, the
rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of
Proceedings at Exhibit E.
A 1 April 2002 letter to a member of Congress, the applicant asserted that
there were errors in the Air Force evaluation upon which the Board relied
to his detriment. In response to the congressional inquiry, he was
advised that his submission did not meet the criteria for reconsideration
(See Exhibit F).
Based on several queries through a member of Congress and the applicant’s
continued assertions concerning alleged erroneous/misleading information
in the original advisory opinion, his case was forwarded to the
appropriate Air Force offices of primary responsibility for additional
reviews (see Exhibit F).
_______________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied. DPPRRP states that the
original advisory (DPPRR) only erred by not identifying an earlier
promulgation of information about disability recoupment. The result of
this one error is that the applicant had several avenues, including one
that was sent to base military personnel offices six months prior to his
signing an SSB agreement in which to learn about recoupment: CBPOL 92-2;
Public Law 102-190; 10 U.S.C., Section 1174a and 1174. DPPRRP states that
a prudent individual would be obligated to investigate the ramifications
of entering into an SSB agreement prior to requesting an SSB in
conjunction with early separation. The AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with
attachments, is at Exhibit G.
AFPC/JA recommends the application be denied. JA states that the error
identified by DPPRRP reinforces the position taken by DPPRR that the
disability compensation information was widely available prior to the
applicant's separation and that he could have availed himself to it. The
AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit H.
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
On 9 July 2004, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant for review and comment. As of this date, this office has not
received a response.
_______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After careful consideration of the
applicant’s submissions and the available evidence, we see no evidence
that would warrant his reinstatement in the Air Force. In this regard, we
are in complete agreement with the opinions and recommendations of the Air
Force offices 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. Accordingly, we find no 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 probable 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 Docket Number BC-1997-03571
in Executive Session on 11 August 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 21 Aug 98,
w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Feb 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 19 May 04 w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 20 Jun 04.
Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jul 04.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00675
Section 1176, Enlisted Members: Retention After Completion of 18 or More, but Less than 20 Years of Service, 10 USC, stated, in part, that a regular enlisted member who is selected to be involuntarily separated, or whose term of enlistment expires and who is denied reenlistment, and who on the date on which the member is to be discharged is within two years of qualifying for retirement, shall be retained on active duty until the member is qualified for retirement, unless the member is sooner...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00015
The agreement also addressed that recoupment would occur if, and when, the applicant became eligible for retired pay, so the claims made by the applicant are clearly unfounded when he states that he did not know that his Reserve retired pay would be recouped for the SSB payment. AFPC/DPPRRP noted the applicant has requested an active duty retirement effective on his date of separation on 5 Jun 92. They stated the applicant did not have sufficient active service to request an active duty...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02738
The applicant’s complete review is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/JA states they cannot support the applicant's request that he be given a full 30-year retirement in the grade of colonel given that he only served 22 years of actual active duty time. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit H. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL...
, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97- 02288 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO AUG 1 4 1998 APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: His Air Force Reserve time, before he went on active duty, be moved to the end of his active duty in order for his last six (6) years of service be reflected as Air Force Reserve time. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we note that when the applicant was found...
His records be purged as follows: All nonselections be deleted; his separation be voided; and his records be corrected to reflect constructive active duty service as appropriate. On 5 Aug 96, the Board considered and denied the applicant's requests that his nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel be set aside; and, that he be directlv promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, or afforde; "effective" Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration (see AFBCMR 93-01960,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01681
In a 4 Feb 00 appeal, he requested SSB consideration for the Fiscal Year 2000 (FY00) Air Force Reserve Colonel Promotion Selection Board, which convened on 18 Oct 99, and any subsequent Reserve Colonel Promotion Board for which he was not considered. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s previous appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C. On 15 Jun 01, the applicant was notified that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03571
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 8 Feb 73 and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on that same date. We agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01012
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His completion of Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) in November 1977 may not have been available for evaluation by any of the promotion boards from 1977 to 1983. DPPPO provides OSBs as evidence that an error did not exist in the applicant's record when it met the respective promotion boards. The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY87, CY89, CY90 and CY91A Selection Boards. Applicant contends the Air Force selection boards are in violation of DoDD 1320.12 by not conducting individual selection boards for each competitive category and preparing individual reports for those boards. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01847
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPX recommended denial indicating the applicant made no claim for sanctuary protection while serving on active duty (other than for training). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 16 Jul 04 for review and response. ...