RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00266
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His home of record (HOR) be changed from Minot, ND, to Hampton, VA.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His recruiter mistakenly put Minot, ND as his HOR, because he thought
he was living there. He was only there for college but then decided
to join the Air Force instead. He is a Virginia resident.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 17
December 2002 at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) in
Fargo, ND. Enlistment records showed his HOR as Minot, ND since this
was the location from which he enlisted.
HOR is defined as the place recorded as the home of the individual at
the time they enlisted, were commissioned, or initially ordered to
active duty. It is recorded in the military personnel record for the
sole purpose of determining transportation entitlements upon
separation, or those of dependents in the event of a member’s death
while on active duty. It does not dictate the location where the
member’s career, HOR remains constant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommended denial and states after a thorough review of
the applicant’s military records, they found no documentation to
substantiate changing the applicant’s HOR. The HOR must be the actual
home of the member upon entering service, and not a different placed
selected for the member’s career convenience.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23
April 2004 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 an error or injustice. Applicant’s contentions are
duly noted; however, he has provided no evidence, which would lead us
to believe the HOR currently reflected in his records was incorrectly
recorded at the time he was initially ordered to active duty.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
basis upon which to recommend favorable action on 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 Docket Number BC-2004-
00266 in Executive Session on 3 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 19 Apr 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 04
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00314
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 Jun 01, for review and response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that 21 days of leave were added to his leave account commencing 1 October...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03558
He was not notified of the change in policy of his SRB, and was miscounseled concerning whether or not he was eligible to reenlist immediately after school. In accordance with the governing instruction, AFI 36-2606, (Reenlistment in the United States Air Force) applicant had to reenlist within 30 days of class graduation date to receive the SRB that was in effect as of the date he was approved for retraining (31 July 2003). Applicant was not eligible to reenlist and receive an SRB...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00684
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03397
He graduated from technical training school on 7 April 2004, and after inquiring about reenlisting, was informed the rules had changed and he was not eligible to reenlist, because he was not within three months of his date of separation (DOS). His complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E _________________________________________________________________ ADDITONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ USAF/JAA reviewed a similar application and provided an advisory which indicates in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01314
On that same date, the discharge authority approved the entry-level separation with service uncharacterized. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPAE found that the RE code 4C, “separated - failure to meet physical standards for enlistment…,” is correct. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01513
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant contends that the technician who initiated her extension paper work at Travis AFB was new to the Reenlistments Office, and improperly figured her reenlistment extension, by telling her she needed 12 months to take her one month past her report not later than date (RNLTD) of 31 Dec 02. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00609
DPPAE states the applicant is not eligible to receive the SRB that was in effect when he was approved for retraining because he did not reenlist within 30 days of the notice of termination of the SRB for that career field. DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he never received official notification of the requirement to reenlist within 30 days of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01308
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states he did not receive formal notification of his CSB election options. We are not persuaded that during the 18 month window he was eligible to render an election to accept or decline CSB, resources were not reasonably made available to the applicant that would made him aware of his eligibility to render a CSB election. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00692
DPPAE’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 2 April 2004 for review and comment within 30 days. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that his home of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02331
His reenlistment contract shows he was eligible to receive a Zone A, Multiple 4 SRB based on 4 years of service. However, based on the evidence of record, the Board majority is not persuaded that the applicant has been a victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.