RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01266
INDEX CODE: 112.10
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 October 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be
corrected to include his Navy Reserve time and his Federal Civil Service
employment time so he would be eligible for a 20-year retirement letter
from the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There is no error or injustice in his record; however, he is requesting a
20-year retirement letter from the Air Force based on his total active duty
time of 17 years, 11 months, and 6 days, his Navy Reserve time, and his
Federal government employment with the Air Force so he can receive
Concurrent Pay Receipt from the Veterans Administration.
In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal statement,
copies of his military personnel records (Navy and Air Force), and copies
of his records pertaining to his Federal civilian employment. The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 21 January 1964, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the
age of 21 in the grade of staff sergeant (E-4) with a date of rank of 21
January 1964. He had previously served on active duty in the Navy from 13
January 1960 to 10 December 1963, and then transferred to and served in the
Navy Reserve until his enlistment in the Air Force. The applicant was
medically retired effective 18 December 1977 with a 50% disability due to
permanent physical disability. He was credited with a total of 17 years, 2
months, and 26 days of active duty service, of which 1 year, 10 months and
28 days was Air Force active duty service.
On 18 August 1978, the applicant was awarded a 50% combined compensable
disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs for residuals
sprain of lumbosacral spine, rated at 40%, and impaired visual acuity,
rated at 20%.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPD recommends denial. DPPD states that a DD Form 214 is to show a
member’s active duty time. Time spent in the Reserves and employment as a
Federal government employee is not active duty. The applicant’s request to
amend or change his DD Form 214 would be in violation of Air Force
Instruction and is not authorized. The DPPD evaluation, with attachment,
is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 20
May 2005 for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this
date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
available records, we found no evidence that the individual’s records are
in error. We note the applicant’s request that the time he served in the
Navy Reserve and the time he was employed as a Federal government employee
be included to qualify him for a 20-year active duty service retirement
from the Air Force; however, time spent in the Reserves and employment as a
Federal government employee is not active duty. To grant the applicant’s
request would be contrary to the governing Air Force regulations and the
law. Therefore, we agree with the assessment by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility and adopt their conclusions as our findings in this
case. Accordingly, the applicant’s request 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 20 September 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2005-01266:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Apr 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 9 May 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 05.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03123
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03123 INDEX CODE: 108.04 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 Apr 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be placed on the permanent disability retired list effective 17 Sep 05. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | bc-2006-02406
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. At no time during the discharge process did the member request an extension to his date of separation. The applicant’s case has undergone an exhaustive review by the Air Force and there is nothing in the evidence provided by the applicant that would overcome its assessment of the case.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02591
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPD reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating, in part, applicant was separated from active service on 8 Aug 05 due to a physical disability and permanently disability retired under the provisions of Title 10 USC 1201. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01514
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01514 INDEX CODE: 135.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded a Reserve retirement at age 60 instead of severance pay due to his having 18 years of service. In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00870
DPPPR’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment on 8 April 2005. We took notice of the applicant’s contention that her late husband should be awarded the KDSM for time served in Korea; however, sufficient evidence has not been presented to substantiate this claim. We thoroughly reviewed the former...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01791
On 11 August 1964, applicant was notified that the commander was recommending he be discharged from the Air Force as an unsuitable airman under the provisions of Section B, AFR 39-16, and that he be furnished a general discharge. The evaluation officer recommended applicant be discharged from the Air Force with an under honorable conditions (general) discharge without being subject to the rehabilitation program. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01023
The applicant has not provided any further documentation showing prior service time that has not been counted. 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. 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,...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00990
Because the applicant had over 16 years TAFMS at the time the discharge board recommended his discharge for misconduct, the applicant was eligible to request lengthy service consideration from the SAF. DPPRRP concludes the applicant submitted no new additional evidence that there was an error or injustice in the discharge proceedings or in lengthy service consideration. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00866
He filed a rebuttal of the charges stating his spouse was also a military member and he wanted to combine her weight allowance with his entitlement. The governing regulation stipulates that when a military member is married to another military member, neither can be counted as being a dependent of the other to increase any allowance (including HHG weight). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the...