ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02538
INDEX CODE: 135.05
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 JULY 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that he be
extended a sufficient amount of time to enable him to retire at the rank of
06.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A similar appeal requesting reinstatement to active reserve status for a
period of one to seven years so the congressionally authorized promotion
board action was not circumvented was considered and denied by the Board on
2 November 2004. For an accounting of the facts and the rationale of the
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with
attachments, at Exhibit F.
By letter, dated 20 January 2005, the applicant submitted a request for
reconsideration, with attachments, contending that it was his understanding
that one reason he was not continued at rank was because he was not
directly in support of the global war on terrorism. To support his
contention, the applicant provided a personal statement, copies of Leave
and Earnings Statements, from 24 Oct 01 to 18 Dec 02; a copy of Partial
Mobilization orders, dated 25 October 2001; copies of award certificates
and updated record form, hostile pay stubs, and travel vouchers from duty
in the area of operation (AOR).
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
On 1 March 2005, through his member of Congress, applicant submitted an
additional statement for the Board’s review (Exhibit H).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in
support of the appeal, we found no evidence that the established MSD was
contrary to the governing instruction and policies which implement the law
in effect at that time. These same policies govern others who were
similarly situated and we know of no other provisions in the law to extend
the applicant’s MSD. The personal sacrifice the applicant contributed to
his country is noted and our decision in no way diminishes the high regard
we have for his service; however, we found no evidence which would persuade
us to amend our earlier decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice. Therefore, in
the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
2. 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 this application in Executive
Session on 17 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 19 November 2004,
with Exhibits.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Jan 05,
with attachments.
Exhibit H. Letter, Member of Congress, dated 2 Feb 05,
with attachments.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02538A
For an accounting of the facts and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit F. By letter, dated 20 January 2005, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration, with attachments, contending that it was his understanding that one reason he was not continued at rank was because he was not directly in support of the global war on terrorism. After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03796-2
In this respect, we note the Silver Star (SS) is awarded for gallantry in action, i.e., heroism in high degree including risk of life, not warranting award of the Medal of Honor (MOH) or the Distinguished Service Cross (DCS). We have thoroughly reviewed the affidavits submitted in support of applicant’s request, and although they attest to his extraordinary leadership and navigational ability in leading the aircraft to the bombing target, they do not persuade us that his actions on 30...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02539
After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The applicant argues he was promoted during this time of war to meet the needs of the Air Force Reserve for experienced colonels and the denial of his exception to policy waiver to be extended beyond his mandatory separation date (MSD) creates an injustice...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02538-2
On his request, dated 31 May 06, the applicant requests his records be reviewed to determine if he was penalized six months of active service based on being inadvertently discharged while in Palace Option status. The retention/retirement date of 30 September was reestablished in 1997 and the points were realigned to the 10 May retention/retirement date (based on his commissioning service date). Exhibit I. Addendum to the Recording of Proceedings, dated 26 Aug 05, with Exhibits.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00612-2A
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and, the rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E. On 26 February 2004, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration, through the American Legion, contending that an Unemployment Commission Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that the government did not have adequate evidence to discharge him from the Air Force Reserve and he was granted...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-04019A
The applicant stated that on the advice of his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) hearing officer, he should request the Air Force correct his records so that he would be rated for his condition of “Filariasis.” The applicant was advised by the AFBCMR in a letter dated 19 Apr 05 that his request did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board (Exhibit G). On 28 Sep 05, the AFBCMR responded to a second Congressional Inquiry (Exhibit I), which asked that it be explained to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02938A
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 Jan 05, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request as stated above (Exhibit E). The applicant provided an electronic copy of the Act and refers the Board to Section 531, “Transition of active-duty list officer force to a force of all regular officers.” The applicant opines that the intent of the act is to make all officers on the active-duty list regular officers and that the section of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01918A
According to a 14 Jun 68 medical entry by the dispensary at Bien Hoa AB, Republic of Vietnam (RVN), his back left shoulder area was sutured for a laceration. In addition, the fact that the applicant is being compensated by the DVA at 10% for the injury does not inherently establish it was directly caused by the enemy, only that it was service connected. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-03845A
Counsel states this is not true and was the reason the applicant requested a personal appearance in the Article 15 action. Counsel argues that the SAFPC memorandum related the reasons they recommended the applicant retire in the lower grade of major. We do not find counsel’s basis for requesting that this case be reviewed by a “new and different panel” sufficient to grant his request.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02625A
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02625 INDEX NUMBER: 108.00 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: DAV XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 Feb 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 10% disability rating she was given when removed from the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) on 14 Jul 04 be changed to a minimum of 30%...