RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01023
INDEX CODE: 135.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His total satisfactory years of service be corrected to reflect that
he has over 20 years of satisfactory service towards a Reserve
retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Navy DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, was destroyed in the St Louis Records Warehouse fire. He
submitted alternate documentation to the Air Reserve Personnel Center
(ARPC) to verify his creditable service and ARPC did not accept the
alternate documentation as verification of his creditable service.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of an Air
Force form DD 214, corrections to said DD Form 214, several
enlistment/reenlistment documents, and copies of an earlier
application to change his record that was returned without action by
HQ ARPC/DPP.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the US Navy Reserve (USNR) on 19 March 1969 for
a period of six years. On 23 June 1969, he joined the Regular Navy
(USN) for a period of two years. On 1 September 1971, he was
honorably discharged from the USN and transferred to the USNR where he
served until 16 May 1973. On 17 May 1973, he joined the Air Force
Reserve (AFR) and served until he was honorably discharged on 16 May
1976. According to DD Form 1966, Record of Military Processing-Armed
Forces of the United States, he had a break in service from 17 May
1976 until he rejoined the USNR on 28 September 1990. He served with
the USNR until 27 August 1997. On 28 August 1997 he joined the
Michigan Air National Guard (MIANG) and continues to serve with them
today. After recent corrections to his DD Form 214, his service has
been calculated and results in 19 years, 0 months, and 0 days of
satisfactory service as of 27 September 2004. He is currently serving
with the MIANG in the grade of master sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPP recommends denial. DPP states they were able to obtain the
applicant’s USN and USNR prior service documentation, originally
thought to have been destroyed by fire. After a subsequent audit of
his service history, DPP could find no discrepancies. The applicant
has not provided any further documentation showing prior service time
that has not been counted. Therefore, DPP’s calculation of 19 years
of satisfactory service as of 27 September 2004 is considered
accurate.
DPP’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
25 March 2005 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 to
include his contention that his prior Navy and Naval Reserve service
were not been credited towards his satisfactory years of service. In
this respect, we note the prior service records previously thought to
have been destroyed were found and the applicant's service records
were corrected to reflect the prior Navy and Naval Reserve service.
An audit of the applicant's service history was reaccomplished and no
discrepancies were found. Therefore, 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. In the absence of
persuasive 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-
2004-01023 in Executive Session on 26 April 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 21 Mar 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Mar 05.
B.J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01332
If his time were calculated using the 15 August date, he would have enough points for a good year. White-Olson, Panel Chair Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Apr 07. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01762
Members of the Board, Ms. B.J. WHITE-OLSON Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, ARPC/DPP, dtd 3 Jul 07, w/atch AFBCMR BC-2007-01762 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: The pertinent military records of the Department of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03718
In order to establish eligibility for Reserve retired pay at age 60, he must complete 20 years of satisfactory service with the last 6 qualifying years in a Reserve component. If he obtains/or has a waiver for age, he would be unable to obtain 20 years satisfactory service for a Reserve Retirement by age 67. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPP recommended denial and stated the member will not complete 20 years of satisfactory...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04004
Because she was working under the assumption that her R/R date had changed to the date she started working as an ALO (11 August), her R/R year for 27 May 2006 to 26 May 2007 ended up being six (6) points shy of the 50 points required for a satisfactory year of service. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states she never received a copy of the Special Orders dated 12 Sep 06 in the mail or at her unit. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03240
After calling the Inspector General (IG) he was told the JAG NCO was no longer with the JAG and all his files had been lost. On 31 December 2004, after 11 years, 11 months, and 22 days of satisfactory service towards a Reserve retirement, he was honorably discharged from the MIANG with a Separation Program Designator Code of FTY, meaning “Resignation for own Convenience.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1POF reviewed this...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03663
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03663 INDEX CODE: 135.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be changed to reflect the period of service from 10 September 1992 to 9 September 1993 be changed from a combination of Regular and Reserve service, to Reserve service only, and that he be made eligible for transfer to...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02767 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated in the grade of lieutenant colonel (0-5) as a retired member of the Air Force Reserve with full eligibility for retirement benefits in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Applicant’s complete submission is...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02467
Members of the Board, Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Ms. Janet I. Hassan, and Mr. James A. Wolffe, considered this application on 20 September 2005. B. J. WHITE-OLSON Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, ARPC/DPP, dtd 30 Aug 05, w/atch AFBCMR BC-2005-02467 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02922
On 16 Jun 57, he joined the Reserves and served until 5 Aug 57. Unfortunately, the applicant cannot recommend himself for award of the SS. White-Olson, Panel Chair Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member Ms. Yvonne T. Jackson, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Aug 07, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03978
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and a copy of his point credit summary and his AGR application. As of 10 May 2006, he has almost 10 years of active duty time. 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the...