RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02499
INDEX CODE: 131.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of rank (DOR) to Technical Sergeant (E-6) be adjusted to add
four years, ten months and thirteen days.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The requested time was earned while on active duty with the US Marine
Corps (USMC) as an E-6. The time was probably overlooked at his
enlistment with the Air National Guard (ANG) as he enlisted as a Staff
Sergeant (E-5). He has been promoted to E-6 in the ANG and feels his
time, as an E-6 in the USMC should count towards future promotion
opportunities. The requested time is documented on his DD Form 214,
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, from his
enlistment with the USMC. He states his need for a document or
notification of some sort from the Board that will allow his squadron
personnel to adjust his time.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a copy of his DD
Form 214 from the USMC.
His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was honorably discharged from the USMC on 14 January
1990 after serving approximately 12 years, for Expiration of
Enlistment. He was discharged as a staff sergeant (E-6) with a DOR of
1 March 1985. He enlisted with the Naval Reserve (NavRes) on 29 March
1990 as an E-3. He transferred to the Florida Army National Guard (FL
NG) on 25 January 1993 as an E-5 and finally transferred to the FL ANG
on 19 August 1993, also as an E-5 with a DOR of his enlistment date.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPI recommends denial. DPPI states that since the applicant
voluntarily enlisted with NavRes, on 29 March 1990, at a lower grade
(E-3), and, because he did not qualify for enlistment with the FL ANG
as an E-6, he is not entitled to count the time spent in the USMC as
an E-6.
DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
15 November 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and
sympathize with his position; 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.
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-
2003-02499 in Executive Session on 6 January 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Jul 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 4 Nov 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 03.
PEGGY E. GORDON
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-2003-02087
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02087 INDEX CODE: 128.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His eligibility for bonus/loan repayment entitlements be reconsidered. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was informed the he was eligible for the student loan and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02842
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant is a prior service member of the US Air Force (USAF) with two years, two months and five days of active service before transferring to the Air National Guard (ANG) under the Palace Chase program. She served her time to qualify for her benefits and is being denied them simply because she chose to serve part time rather than not at all which would have been the case had she been separated...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00997
He returned to training on 7 September 2000, completed the training on 24 January 2001 and was promoted to SrA on 10 February 2001. Further, DPPI notes that the applicant refers to AFI 36-2502, Airmen Promotion, to validate his request for DOR change. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00362
INDEX CODE: 131.05 BC-2005-00362 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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00247
INDEX CODE: 131.05 BC-2005-00247 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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-01750
INDEX CODE: 131.05 AFBCMR BC-2004-01750 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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00381
INDEX CODE: 131.05 BC-2005-00381 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-2002-04040
ANG/DPPI’s evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s vice commander (WADS/CV) responded on behalf of the applicant and notes that the ANG/DPPI evaluation, while factually correct, does not address circumstantial process shortfalls particular to the applicant’s case. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01680
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The computation of his original DOR was not done in accordance with current DoD policy relating to the accession of Dental Corps officers in the Reserve of the Air Force. The subject policy memorandum giving the services the authority to appoint in the higher grade of captain was dated 19 Jan 01 and was effectively immediately at that time. The policy memo clearly states, “This provision is in effect...