ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01371-2
INDEX CODE: 110.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His record be corrected to reflect 20 years of active duty service, a
subsequent active duty retirement, and a pilot bonus he would have received
had he been selected for any one of several fulltime positions he applied
for but was never selected.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 16 May 2006, the applicant's request to change his records to show he
was eligible for a 20-year active duty retirement and a pilot bonus
contingent on his selection for any one of several active duty positions he
applied for was considered and denied by the Board. 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 E.
On 10 July 2006, he submitted a request for reconsideration contending the
NYANG’s handling of his non-retention was not in accordance with ANG
Instruction (ANGI) 36-2606 (Exhibit F). He has provided a personal
statement and a narrative of a taped conversation between him and his
commander that clearly demonstrates that the scheduled timeline (regarding
the retention management program) mandated by the ANGI was not adhered to.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support
of his appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the applicant should be granted a
20-year active duty retirement nor be given a pilot bonus even he admits
would only be granted were he to have been selected for one of several
active duty positions on his base. As previously noted, the selecting
official and the State Adjutant General are responsible for hiring
personnel against vacant positions in the ANG. We carefully considered the
statements provided by the applicant and while we believe the evidence to
be new and relevant, it is not of such significance as to alter our
original decision. 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. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 31 May 06,
with exhibits A through D.
Exhibit G. Applicant’s Letter, dated 10 Jul 06, w/atchs.
[pic]
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01371
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01371 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: HARRY KONST HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to reflect 20 years of active duty service, a subsequent active duty retirement, and a pilot bonus he would have received had he been selected for any one of several positions he had applied for but...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03053
The State HQ based their denial of his promotion on ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2502, wherein it is stated members on 4-P (permanent) medical status are not eligible for promotion consideration. A1POF contends he was denied promotion on 6 February 2004 by the TXANG as he was ineligible in accordance with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00693
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00693 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to show her name as “Catherine”, and her NGB Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed in block 8a, Station or Installation at...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03580
Additionally, because he was considered a two-time passover for promotion to lieutenant colonel, he was notified he would be retired as required by law effective 1 April 2001. He did not complete the training because of his retirement from military service effective 1 April 2001. The particular member was never the applicant’s supervisor and his duties and responsibilities at the time were far- removed from the applicants.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03031
JA states that based on the facts presented in the NGB opinions, JA finds their responses to be legally sufficient and concurs with the recommendations to deny the applicant's requests for corrective action related to ACP payments, Board# V0611A, AGR separation from ANG Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) consideration, and TERA. Counsels complete response is at Exhibit N. _______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03281
As the OPR’s were not completed in accordance with governing Instructions and were not timely, she was forced to meet a mandatory promotion board instead of qualifying for a Position Vacancy (PV) promotion to major. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the ANG advisory cites a paragraph from ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2504, Federal Recognition Of Promotion In The Air National Guard And As A Reserve Of...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02034
In February 2007, the applicant was considered but was not selected for promotion by the FY08 Reserve Major Promotion Board. She ended up meeting the promotion board in the same Category E position as the first board. DPB states there is no apparent error in her Officer Selection Record (OSR) that could result in Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration in lieu of either the FY07 or FY08 USAFR Major Promotion Boards.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01005
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPAOT recommended denial with respect to reinstatement of his pilot slot; however, they support granting an age waiver to allow the applicant to compete for a pilot training slot on the next available active duty selection board, tentatively scheduled for Jan 07. DPAOT consensus is that if an individual earned a pilot training slot, is found medically disqualified and then medically...
AFMAN 36-8001, Reserve Personnel Participation and Training Procedures, does not apply to the ANG, the component to which he belonged at the time he performed the 48 IDT periods. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/FMF recommends the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03913
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...