Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2003-03436-3
Original file (BC-2003-03436-3.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03436
                                        INDEX CODE:  121.03

                                  COUNSEL:  NONE

                                  HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In lieu of being paid for eight and one half (8.5) days of leave she  would
rather the eight and one half days of leave be used to extend her  date  of
separation (DOS) by eight and one half days from 2 May 2003 to 10 May 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On 13 January 2005, the applicant's original request to have up  to  29 days
of leave reinstated to her leave account was partially granted in  that  the
Board extended her Date of Separation from 12 April  2003  to  2  May  2003.
For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and   circumstances   surrounding   the
applicant’s request, and, the rationale  of  the  earlier  decision  by  the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F.

On 31 January 2005, the applicant submitted a  request  for  reconsideration
wherein she asked the Board to grant up to 18 days of additional leave  that
the Board had denied on 31 July 2003.  For an accounting of  the  facts  and
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request,  and,  the  rationale  of
the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at  Exhibit
G.

In early February 2006, the applicant submitted an application  asking  that
the Board reconsider her request and restore eight  and  one  half  days  of
leave that DFAS had paid her for (Exhibit I).  The request was sent to  DFAS
for an advisory opinion.  DFAS provided only what would  happen  should  her
leave not be sold but be  used  instead  to  extend  her  DOS  (Exhibit  J).
Applicant responded to the advisory and agreed with the DFAS findings.   She
reiterated her request to have the eight and one half days of leave used  to
extend her DOS (Exhibit K).

_________________________________________________________________


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in  support
of her appeal, we  are  unpersuaded  the  applicant  should  be  granted  an
extension of her DOS.  The fact DFAS automatically pays out any  leave  left
on the books at DOS is not an error or injustice.  Therefore,  we  can  find
no evidence of error or injustice in how she was remunerated  for  the  days
DFAS paid her for as it appears the system worked the way  it  was  supposed
to.  The fact she was injured one day after her DOS is not reason to  extend
her DOS.  Unless we are presented with an error or  injustice  supported  by
new evidence not available at  the  time  she  first  applied,  she  is  not
entitled to any more than the extension of her DOS originally  granted  her.
In this case, we do not find the additional evidence she provided to  be  of
such significance as to cause us to consider granting  her  request  to  use
leave  DFAS  paid  her  for  over  and  above   that   previously   granted.
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  probable  material  error  or  injustice;  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 27 September 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
      Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 25 Jan 05,
                  with exhibits A through E.
    Exhibit G.  Record of Proceedings, dated 7 Sep 05,
                  with exhibit H.
    Exhibit I.  Applicant’s Letter, undated, w/atch.
    Exhibit J.  DFAS-POCC/DE, Letter, dated 25 May 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit K.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 28 Jun 06.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                        Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2003-00308-2

    Original file (BC-2003-00308-2.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 Aug 03, the Board considered, and by a majority vote, denied a similar appeal submitted by the applicant. In the absence of official documentation showing she was diagnosed with scoliosis while serving on active duty we find no error in this case and are not persuaded by her contentions that she has been the victim of an injustice. Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Aug 03, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03076

    Original file (BC-2002-03076.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She didn’t receive a copy of the voucher at the time it was filed. By letter dated 17 October 2002, the Directorate of Debt and Claims Management, DFAS-Denver, notified the applicant that her request for waiver was denied. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-POCC/DE states that the Remission and Waiver Branch informed them that the applicant had filed a waiver application and they provided a copy of the letter that was sent to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03076

    Original file (BC-2002-03076.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She didn’t receive a copy of the voucher at the time it was filed. By letter dated 17 October 2002, the Directorate of Debt and Claims Management, DFAS-Denver, notified the applicant that her request for waiver was denied. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: DFAS-POCC/DE states that the Remission and Waiver Branch informed them that the applicant had filed a waiver application and they provided a copy of the letter that was sent to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02792

    Original file (BC-2003-02792.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The DPSFM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPRRP recommends approval based on the fact that he sold back 28 days of leave based on information provided to him by his Financial Service Office. Since applicant had requested a retirement date of 1 Sep 02, we do not believe that a change in his retirement is warranted. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2003-02792 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002963

    Original file (0002963.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 Dec 00 for review and response within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that competent authority deferred until 1 January 2003, the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01913

    Original file (BC-2006-01913.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01913 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 DECEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reimbursed for premiums deducted from her pay for Family Servicemen’s Group Life Insurance (FSGLI). If her service record needs to be corrected, it must be to enroll her active duty spouse under...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1994-03165A

    Original file (BC-1994-03165A.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 6 August 1995, the Board considered applicant’s request that he be reinstated on active duty in his former grade with all back pay and allowances and that he be given the opportunity for a new occupational specialty. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted by applicant, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Staff Judge Advocate and adopt...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03245

    Original file (BC-2004-03245.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03245 INDEX CODE: 121.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The eight days of leave she lost at the end of fiscal year (FY) 2004 be restored. Upon completion of her bed rest, she was required to return to her duty section in support of mission critical activities. MARTHA J. EVANS Panel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9601264

    Original file (9601264.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Air Force Reviewoards Agency RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: * COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be refunded for prenatal and delivery expenses incurred in a civilian facility after her separation in the amount of $4,237.14. If approved, (applicant's request was not), the individual must be informed any maternity care in a civilian medical facility is at the patient's own expense and, if care must be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03592

    Original file (BC-2005-03592.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. DPW states the Air Force took adequate steps to inform all members of this new program and the applicant had adequate time between 1 November 2001 - 31 December 2001 to make an election decision. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 05.