RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00326
INDEX NUMBER: 136.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her discharge from the Air Force be changed to retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In her quest to become pregnant and have a family, with over 19 years
of service, she elected to take the Special Separation Benefit (SSB)
in order to pay for medical procedures she could not obtain in the
military.
The medical procedures she underwent were unsuccessful in helping her
to become a mother and led to medical complications that have left her
disabled and unable to work.
She believes that given the number of years she served in the Air
Force, she should enjoy the benefits that her peers now enjoy. She is
not seeking any money or retirement check.
In support of her request, applicant provides copies of her military
service record and copies of favorable communications from her
employment with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 29 Jun 73.
Sometime in the 1991/92 timeframe the applicant applied for and was
approved for the Special Separation Benefit. On 10 Jun 92, she signed
the agreement, which stipulated that in return for separation pay in
the amount of $60,846.80, she agreed to separate from active duty and
accept an enlistment in the Ready Reserve for a period of three years
beyond any existing service obligation. The agreement also spelled
out other conditions to which the applicant agreed. On 10 Jul 92, the
applicant was released from active duty with service characterized as
honorable and a “3S” Reenlistment Eligibility code, “Separated with
Special Separation Benefit.”
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial of the applicant’s request. Based on the
documentation in the applicant’s master personnel file, she
voluntarily applied to separate from the Air Force to receive the
Special Separation Benefit being offered at that time. Although the
applicant seems to regret her decision to accept the SSB, she has not
provided any evidence of an error or injustice.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the applicant’s request. With 19
years and 12 days of total active federal military service, the
applicant could have requested retirement, since she was within one
year of having 20 years of service. However, she chose to apply for
separation under the SSB program. The applicant indicates that her
supervisors and commander warned her that her decision to accept the
SSB was a huge trade-off and that she might regret her decision. The
applicant voluntarily chose to be separated under the SSB program.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
23 Apr 04 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response
has not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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 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. 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 Docket Number BC-2004-
00326 in Executive Session on 24 June 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 7 Apr 04.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 7 Apr 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Apr 04.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00743
Based on the documentation in the applicant’s master personnel records, his discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. Should he do so, it may provide the Board a basis to consider granting his request based on clemency. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Apr 04.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | bc-2007-01927
Had she known she could have received a TERA retirement based on years of service, she would have taken that instead of appealing the decision of the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) regarding her retirement at 30 percent disability. Had she been returned to duty on 21 Aug 94, instead of permanently retired, she still could have requested to retire under TERA not later than 1 Sep 94 under the FY94 Force Reduction Program, a later TERA program, or retire at 20 years TAFMS, her mandatory...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02437
In regards to the applicant’s OPR (c/o date 13 Feb 05), the rater provided a memorandum, stating due to an oversight, the applicant was given an IDE push. AFBCMR (Processing) LATRESE M. TAYLOR Examiner Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DATE: 16 Nov 06 MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member TYPE OF MEETING: FORMAL _____ EXECUTIVE SESSION X EXAMINER:...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01177
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSFOC recommended approval noting the applicant requested an extension of his HYT in Nov 03, but was disapproved by AFPC/DPPRR on 4 Feb 04. AFPC/DPSFOC indicated that since his second request was disapproved on 11 Mar 04 and his retirement date was 1 Apr 04, this only left the applicant enough time to out-process the Air Force prior to his retirement. They believe the applicant’s retirement date...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00929
On 7 Mar 01, the Wing Commander directed that the applicant be separated from the Air Force based on a Pattern of Misconduct (Conduct Prejudicial to Good Order and Discipline). Applicant has indicated technical irregularity in his case based on AFI 36-3208, paragraph 5.2, which states “Airmen should have an opportunity to overcome their deficiencies before discharge action starts...” Based on the actions taken against the applicant from Mar 00 to Dec 00, he was provided the opportunity to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00568
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00568 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Separation Code of “JBK,” discharged after completion of required service, be changed. Her “2X” Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code, “First-term, second-term, or career airman considered but not selected for...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01050
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01050 INDEX NUMBER: 110.02 COUNSEL: J.C. HERNANDEZ HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter,...
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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02687
Her TFCSD is 8 May 82 and her MSD was computed as 1 Jun 2010 based on the first day of the following month in which she completed 28 years of commissioned service. Even though she did not participate in a unit or individual Reserve program for 3 years and 11 months from 22 Oct 92 to 18 Sep 96, that time still accounts for her TFCSD of 8 May 82 and cannot be adjusted because she did not participate. Had she selected the SSB, she would also have been transferred to the NNRPS on 22 Oct 92 as...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00475
The record contains one airman performance report with an overall rating of “9.” On 15 Apr 87, the applicant’s commander notified her that he was recommending that she be discharged from the Air Force for misconduct – drug abuse. The discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority and the correct narrative reason for discharge was “misconduct – drug abuse.” Applicant did not submit any evidence or identify any errors or injustices that occurred in the discharge processing. ...