Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | bc-2003-02429
Original file (bc-2003-02429.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02429
            INDEX NUMBER: 100.00

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer  or  Discharge,  DD
Form 214, issued in conjunction with his 30 June 1968  release  from  active
duty, be amended to reflect that he was discharged on 9  May  1973,  in  the
grade of major.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records contain numerous errors and he was not discharged from  all  Air
Force appointments until 9 May 1973.

Applicant’s complete  submissions,  with  attachments,  are  at  Exhibits  A
through C.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

After being twice non-selected for  promotion  to  the  temporary  grade  of
major, by the Fiscal Year 1967 (FY67) (17 October 1966)  and  the  FY68  (16
August 1967) selection boards, the  applicant  was  released  from  extended
active duty (EAD)  on  30 June  1968,  and  transferred  to  the  Air  Force
Reserve, Non-Affiliated Reserve Section (NARS), in the grade of captain.

He was promoted to the Reserve grade of major on 24 February 1969.

He was reassigned from NARS to the  Inactive  Status  List  Reserve  Section
(ISLRS) on 9 April 1970.

Effective 9 May 1973, he was relieved from his assignment, HQ ARPC  (ISLRS),
and honorably discharged from all appointments in the Air Force.



On 30 April 1969 and 15 October 1975, the Board considered  and  denied  his
requests for direct promotion to the grade of major, as if selected  by  the
FY68 selection board, and reinstatement to active duty.  He  contended  that
his promotion nonselection was a  result  of  the  omission  of  a  required
Officer Evaluation Report (OER) from his record; however, the  Board  agreed
with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that in accordance  with
the procedures in effect at the  time  of  his  promotion  consideration,  a
directed OER was not required since an  OER  closing  4 December  1966,  had
been added to his selection folder subsequent to his first consideration  by
the Fiscal Year 1967 selection board (BC-1969-00975).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPSS recommends the application be denied and  states,  in  part,  that
the  applicant’s  records  are  complete  and  correct  according   to   the
regulations in effect at the time of his release and discharge.

The ARPC/DPPS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was not discharged from all appointments in the Air  Force  until  9  May
1973.  As such, he could  not  have  been  separated  prior  to  that  date.
Although he was twice non-selected for promotion to the temporary  grade  of
major, he was selected for permanent promotion to the grade of major  on  24
February 1969.  For this reason, he was not released from active duty on  30
June 1968, and incurred a service commitment of 2 March 1969.

Applicant’s complete responses, with attachments, are at Exhibits I  through
L.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the  evidence
of record and applicant’s submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  relief
should be granted.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,  we  do
not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive  to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force.   The  office  of  primary
responsibility has  adequately  addressed  applicant’s  contentions  and  we
agree with their opinion and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  that  he
has suffered  from  either  an  error  or  injustice.   Hence,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2003-02429
in Executive Session on 19 February 2004, under the provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                       Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Nov 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, ARPC/DPSS, dated 3 Dec 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Dec 03.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jan 04.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jan 04, w/atch.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jan 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jan 04.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02340

    Original file (BC-2007-02340.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    He did not find out he had been considered for promotion to the grade of major until after his second promotion deferral. Air Force Reserve members requesting voluntary reassignment to an inactive status are assigned to either the Obligated Reserve Section (ORS) if their Military Service Obligation (MSO) has not been completed, or to the Non- obligated Non-participating Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS) once their MSO has been completed. During his transition out of the military, he did not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03831

    Original file (BC-2002-03831.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS INDEX CODE 102.06 113.00 135.00 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2002-03831 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) be adjusted from 19 Apr 73 to 22 Feb 78 by allowing him to resign his US Air Force Reserve (USAFR) commission on 30 Jun 79 and reappointing him on 4 May 84, thereby...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00824

    Original file (BC-2003-00824.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In this regard, we noted the statement from the applicant’s flight commander to HQ ARPC, which the senior rater concurred with, indicating that the applicant’s position vacancy promotion recommendation form (PV PRF) package was completed in a timely manner, but for several reasons was not processed by the published suspense date, resulting in the applicant being denied an opportunity for promotion consideration. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04553

    Original file (BC 2012 04553.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04553 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His record be further corrected to account for his denied promotion opportunities to lieutenant colonel and colonel, in that he was not considered by promotion board for which he would have been eligible had he been accessed in the correct rank. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03440

    Original file (BC-2006-03440.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although assignment to ISLRS is a break in active Reserve status, and an officer’s date of rank is adjusted accordingly, since they are ineligible for promotion consideration, it is not a break in service. Although applicant had four years, four months, and 12 days of non- participating service, he has had no break in service, and no error or injustice occurred with his assignment to ISLRS and subsequent change to his R/R date. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03681

    Original file (BC-2002-03681.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was transferred to ISLRS on 20 Oct 87, and remained in ISLRS until 19 Jul 96, when he was honorably discharged from all appointments in the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPA recommended denial indicating that, as required by AFI 36- 3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, the Air Force Reserve Personnel Center periodically screens officers assigned to ISLRS...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00137

    Original file (BC-2004-00137.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    His commander received an informal email in late November 2002 requesting that an Officer Performance Report (OPR) be prepared for the February 2003 major board. Since he is no longer a member of the Air Force Reserve as a result of the two nonselections, he is not eligible for consideration by a Reserve promotion board. All of the officers selected for promotion by the FY03 board had completed SOS and 94% of the officers selected by the FY04 board had completed SOS.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0100847

    Original file (0100847.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The DOR was established as 1 Sep 00, per the Department of The Navy, Special Promotion Selection Board letter, dated 11 May 01 According to DPA, on 26 May 00, the applicant was appointed into the Air Force Reserve as a major IAW Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2005, Appointment in Commissioned Grades and Designation and Assignment in Professional Categories - Reserve of the Air Force and United States Air Force, Table 2.3, “Appointment Grade and Computation of TYSD, Date of Rank (DOR), &...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03804

    Original file (BC-2003-03804.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03804 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal awarded to him for the period Oct 99 to May 03 and approved on 8 Oct 03 be included in his officer selection record (OSR) for the CY03A Lieutenant Colonel Central...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03168

    Original file (BC-2003-03168.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board, which denied her request. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant provides specific examples that she indicates cause the contested OPR to be in violation of Air Force Instruction 36-2406. In her response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant...