Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01200
Original file (BC-2005-01200.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01200
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  American Legion

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Block 12g of his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty, be changed from 0 years, 0 months,  and  0  days  of  Sea
Service to 4 years, 0 months, and 29 days.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When the DD Form  214  was  accomplished  a  typographical  error  was
committed leaving Block 12g blank by mistake.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided several copies of
DD Form 214’s and two National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22’s, Report of
Separation and Record of Service.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a retired  member  of  the  Idaho  Air  National  Guard
(IDANG), began his military career on 29 October 1961.  He  eventually
attained the grade of senior master sergeant  (SMSgt),  effective  and
with a date or rank (DOR) of 18 May 1991.  He  served  over  10  years
with the IDANG and was honorably discharged on 31 December 1999.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFOC recommends denial.  DPFOC contends in  accordance  with  Air
National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-3202,  the  DD  Form  214  should
“…[reflect] only those actions accomplished during the period  covered
by the form.”  The period of Sea Service occurred while  serving  with
the US Marine Corps (USMC) and is documented  on  his  DD  Form  214’s
issued by the USMC.  Further, Sea Service is not  an  authorized  area
for time to be totaled from previous DD Form 214’s.

DPFOC’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
18 November 2005 for review and comment within 30 days.   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  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air
National  Guard  office  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt   its
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 to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
2005-01200  in  Executive  Session  on  18  January  2006,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:


      Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 15 Nov 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Nov 05.




                                   KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03628

    Original file (BC-2004-03628.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He notes he had served with the Regular Air Force for a year and three months prior to serving with the Air National Guard (ANG). _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a former member of the Louisiana Air National Guard (LAANG) began his military career in the Regular Air Force on 20 April 1984. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03882

    Original file (BC-2004-03882.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not counseled or advised of the options available to him regarding the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) or medical discharge from the Air Force. Further, he was not given adequate time to reach a decision on whether or not to submit a letter of exception to the IPEB regarding the Board’s findings. Furthermore, applicant submitted a letter...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01267

    Original file (BC-2005-01267.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He began his series of extensive dental care in August 1996, after his orders had expired, and continued to receive dental care until care was completed in December 1996. On 23 May 2003, he received a Notification of Indebtedness from the unit comptroller wherein he was asked to pay a lump sum payment of $1,570.00 by 23 June 2003 or appeal the validity of the debt, request remission or cancellation of the debt, request a waiver of the debt, apply to the AFBCMR for relief, or propose a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02945

    Original file (BC-2004-02945.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Each time he was told it was being worked. Was the selected individual eligible to apply for the 2R171 position as stated in applicable regulations at the time? _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00151

    Original file (BC-2005-00151.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 121.00 AFBCMR BC-2005-00151 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00956

    Original file (BC-2005-00956.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The return trip to the United States was in February 2003 and was an 18- hour flight. In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and copies of medical records, letters of support from attending physicians and witnesses, his LOD and Physical Profile Report, the first and second Report of Investigation (ROI), military medical history documents, deployment reports and associated orders, and pertinent information derived from the Internet dealing with pulmonary...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03913

    Original file (BC-2005-03913.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Therefore, he should have been promoted via the Reserve Office Promotion Act (ROPMA) in 1999, his seventh year of time in grade (TIG) as a captain. A1POF states he was, in fact, considered by the fiscal year 2000 (FY00) Air National Guard Major mandatory promotion board and was not selected making him a once-deferred officer. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air National...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01850

    Original file (BC-2005-01850.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 131.05 BC-2005-01850 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01880

    Original file (BC-2005-01880.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 131.05 BC-2005-01880 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02269

    Original file (BC-2005-02269.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 131.05 BC-2005-02269 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...