RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00840
INDEX CODE: 128.14
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 Sep 05
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His separation date of Nov 03 be set aside so that he may be
reinstated to active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His nonselection for continued active duty service was made under
false pretenses, thereby denying him the good faith and fair dealing
due to him in equity and under the law. He believes his separation
from active duty was contrary to the best interests of the United
States and the Air Force.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement
and copies of his limited active duty and separation orders.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
By Special Order AGA-145, dated 13 Oct 00, the applicant, a captain in
the Air Force Reserve, was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty
on 13 Nov 00 for a period of three years. He was released from active
duty on 12 Nov 03.
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in
the grade of major, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Oct 02. He is
credited with 19 years of satisfactory Federal service for retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAOO recommended denial noting the applicant applied for and
was selected for extended active duty (EAD) via the Limited EAD
Program for a period of three years from 13 Nov 00 to 12 Nov 03. As
the name implies, the Limited EAD Program is a program which recalls
an officer to active duty for a limited period of time to fill a
specific active duty position. Upon completion of the Limited EAD
tour, the officer is separated. Although the applicant submitted an
application for permanent recall on 23 Jul 03, he was not selected and
was notified of his nonselection on 9 Sep 03. According to
AFPC/DPPAOO, the applicant was not in the active duty sanctuary at the
time of his separation from his Limited EAD tour and was not eligible
to claim active duty sanctuary. Additionally, his permanent recall
application was evaluated fairly and disapproval was based on the
needs of the Air Force.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAOO evaluation is at Exhibit B.
ARPC/DPP recommended denial regarding the applicant being placed in
the Reserve sanctuary because he does not meet the requirements.
According to ARPC/DPP, the governing statute (10 USC 12646) allows
officers with 18 or 19, but less than 20 years of satisfactory service
to be eligible for Reserve sanctuary if they have been twice-deferred
for promotion to the next higher grade or are approaching the
expiration of their Mandatory Separation Date (MSD). The applicant
does not currently have an MSD or has not been twice-deferred for
promotion.
A complete copy of the ARPC/DPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response
indicating although he was brought on active duty under the Limited
EAD Program as a rated officer, he was not afforded the opportunity
for any rated officer skill refreshment or upgrade training.
Therefore, he should not have been turned down for continued active
duty because of a lack of recent rater experience, and he contests any
such finding because of its inherent unfairness.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air
Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) 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 the applicant was treated differently than others
similarly situated, 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 issues 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-
2004-00840 in Executive Session on 16 Jun 05, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Panel Chair
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPAOO, dated 11 May 05.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 12 May 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 05.
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, dated 6 Jun 05.
MARTHA J. EVANS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01681
In a 4 Feb 00 appeal, he requested SSB consideration for the Fiscal Year 2000 (FY00) Air Force Reserve Colonel Promotion Selection Board, which convened on 18 Oct 99, and any subsequent Reserve Colonel Promotion Board for which he was not considered. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s previous appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C. On 15 Jun 01, the applicant was notified that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00133
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAO evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial of the applicant’s request for an SSB with a corrected OSB. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting corrective action concerning the applicant’s request he be provided SSB consideration with a corrected OSB.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05134
His records were also corrected to show that he was recalled to active duty under the Limited Period Recall Program (LPRP) effective 1 Dec 09, and his records be considered by a SSB CY10 United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Line and Non-Line Colonels Promotion Selection Board. Per AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, Section 2.7.3, all ANG/USAFR officers serving on a Limited Recall to Extended Active Duty (LEAD) tour...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02472
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPF recommends approval to restore 35 days of lost leave. The complete DPF evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAOO recommends denial to the applicant’s request to correct his separation and retirement dates to reflect 28 February 2005 and 1 March 2005, respectively. The Board notes the Force Shaping Program in force at that time stated phase II officers serving on active duty in the Limited EAD...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02866
However, only five years of this time was satisfactory service creditable toward retired pay eligibility. The applicant’s record contains no documentation of active Reserve participation other than the two periods she served on active duty, 31 Oct 66 through 30 Oct 68, and 4 Dec 91 through 23 Nov 94. Other than the two periods applicant served on active duty, 31 Oct 66 to 30 Oct 68, and 4 Dec 91 to 23 Nov 94, there is no evidence of any active Reserve participation.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03226
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-03226 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) be extended in order for him to achieve an Air National Guard (ANG) retirement with 20 years of service. Removing his time in ISLRS will not change his MSD. He is asking the Board to allow him to continue...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01313
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01313 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air National Guard (ANG) retirement effective date of 30 September 2009 be withdrawn. He submitted a Reserve retirement application on 9 July 2009requesting a retirement effective 30 September 2009. He submitted a request to withdraw his...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 May 1999, the Board reconsidered and denied applicant’s request that his discharge be declared void and that he receive retroactive pay, points and sufficient years of service to qualify for a reserve retirement. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel states that the applicant did not confuse...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02697
On 16 Jun 00, the member was appointed into the Air Force Reserve Chaplain Candidate program. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2006- 02697 in Executive Session on 31 October 2006, under...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00806
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00806 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated into the Air Force Reserve (AFR) in order to obtain 20 years of satisfactory service. At the time of his discharge, he had 18 years, 2 months, and 24 days of satisfactory service and should have been allowed to complete 20 years by...