Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04241
Original file (BC-2003-04241.doc) Auto-classification: Denied






                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-04241
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His 2002 and 2003 Lieutenant  Colonel  promotion  board  deferrals  be
vacated and that his Individual Ready Reserve (IRR)  time  be  deleted
from his Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) total.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He would like to deploy and serve with his unit in Iraq in early 2004.
 He was not aware that he had met a  promotion  board  in  2002  until
after the fact.  He had requested he not meet that board.  He was  not
informed that the 2003 promotion board was a mandatory board until  it
was too late for him to prepare to meet it.   He  recently  discovered
that computer  records  submitted  to  both  boards  were  incomplete.
Furthermore, he recently discovered that the time he spent in the  IRR
counted  against  his  total  commissioned  service  time   and   that
consequently, he is due to be separated on 1 January 2004.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a former member of the Washington  Air  National  Guard
(WAANG), was not selected  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  by
either  the  Fiscal  Year  (FY)  2003  or   2004   promotion   boards.
Additionally,  he  reached  his  mandatory  separation  date  and  was
separated 1 January 2004.

_________________________________________________________________






AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPP recommends this application be denied.  DPP is of the  opinion
that no basis or authority exists for making  the  requested  changes.
DPP states that after consulting with the  WAANG  and  National  Guard
Bureau offices of primary  responsibility  (OPRs)  the  applicant  was
given  proper  and  accurate   guidance   concerning   his   promotion
opportunities.  Also, DPP states they are unable to subtract  his  IRR
time from his TFCSD, as  the  time  he  spent  in  the  IRR  is  still
technically recognized as commissioned Federal service.

DPP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  states  he  does  not  agree  with  the  advisory   opinion
indicating he was afforded proper guidance  concerning  his  promotion
opportunities.  Since his application, he has found another member who
was involved in an almost identical situation in that  he  had  met  a
promotion Board without his knowledge.  He notes he has  learned  that
if one deferral were vacated he could be able to continue serving long
enough to go to Iraq with his unit and then meet  a  promotion  Board.
He was not aware of this possibility when he originally asked for both
deferrals to be vacated.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an  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
National Guard  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 Board took note of  the
applicant’s contention that he was not aware he had  met  a  promotion
board in 2002 until after the fact, or that his 2003  promotion  board
was a mandatory board. However, we are not persuaded by  the  evidence
provided that  he  was  not  afforded  proper  and  accurate  guidance
concerning his promotion opportunities.  Regarding his request to have
his IRR time subtracted from his Total  Federal  Commissioned  Service
Date (TFCSD), we note that IRR time is currently recognized as Federal
service  and  should  be  counted  as  part  of  his   total   federal
commissioned service. Therefore, in the absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this 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(s)   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-
2003-04241 in Executive Session on 15 July 2004, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
      Mr. James E. Short, Member
      Mr. Gary G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Dec 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPP, dated 21 May 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 04.
    Exhibit E.  Telegram, Applicant, dated 28 Jun 04.



                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01957

    Original file (BC-2010-01957.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS However, in accordance with 10 USC 12683 and AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members , he should have been discharged from ISLRS after three years, effective 2 Oct 01. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant correcting the applicant’s records to show that he was discharged from the Inactive Status List...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01094

    Original file (BC-2003-01094.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01094 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge order be rescinded so that he may join the New York Air National Guard (NY ANG). A complete copy of his submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ The following...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00933

    Original file (BC-2003-00933.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was considered by the FY02 JAG and Chaplain Major Selection Board (V0402B), which convened on 19 Feb 01, and the FY03 JAG and Chaplain Other than Selected Reserve Board (W0403B), which convened on 22 Apr 02, but not selected for promotion by either board. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03439

    Original file (BC-2006-03439.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    A member’s Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) is established from their Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) in accordance with Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 14507, which requires that a Line-of- the Air Force colonel, not selected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general, be separated not later than the first day of the month following completion of 30-years commissioned service. Although applicant contends he had a break in service from November 1982 to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03023

    Original file (BC-2003-03023.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The IG’s investigation was not obligated to determine the validity of Col “W’s” claims of the applicant’s performance but whether or not Col “W” abused his authority by ordering that the two OPR’s be written. He asks that the Board consider the documented record of his performance included in his application instead. In view of the above determination and in an effort to provide the applicant with appropriate relief, we recommend that his records be corrected to show that he was promoted...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2000-02768A

    Original file (BC-2000-02768A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-01205

    Original file (BC-2004-01205.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    After she filed a complaint, an investigation was completed and her Wing commander determined she should be reenlisted. On 23 March 2004, the Wing Commander allowed her to reenlist in the MOANG for a period of three years but only reinstated her AGR tour for one year. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03815

    Original file (BC-2003-03815.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Additionally, since he had been appointed in the CAANG, he should have met the ANG FY03 Major Selection Board instead of the AFRES Major Selection Board. The majority of the Board finds no error or injustice in the time required to appoint him in the CAANG as the time to do so does not seem disproportionate considering the scale of the requirements necessary to obtain his appointment. It is further recommended that his record, without the above referenced Article 15, be considered for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03683

    Original file (BC-2003-03683.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 April 2003, he was told that he would no longer be on active duty orders and that because he refused the back surgery, he would not be offered MPA days until he received the results of the physical evaluation board (PEB). DPP cites AFI 48-123, Medical Examinations and Standards, wherein it states “ANG members with a known medical or dental condition who refuse to comply with a request for medical information or evaluation are considered medically unfit for continued military duty and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01948

    Original file (BC-2004-01948.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    It had not been an issue as long as he would reach 20 years and had 10 years commissioned service. _________________________________________________________________ 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...