RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01951
INDEX CODE: 128.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
$702.50 of Serviceman’s Group Life Insurance (SGLI) premiums collected
after he had been discharged from the Minnesota Air National Guard
(MNANG) be reimbursed to him.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was discharged effective 4 November 1996 but due to a clerical
error by his unit, he was charged for SGLI premiums after he had been
discharged. The Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC)
also committed a clerical error claiming he had received $525 from an
AFROTC scholarship from 1 April 1998 to 15 July 1998. He was actually
removed from the scholarship on 31 March 1998 and his payments from
the scholarship had actually ended on 20 December 1997.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a copy of his
National Guard bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of separation and record
of Service, and an honorable discharge order separating him from the
US Air Force Reserve (USAFR) and disenrolling him from the AFROTC
program, both actions effective 31 March 1998.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the MNANG on 23 April 1995 and was progressively
promoted to the grade of airman first class (A1C) with a date of rank
(DOR) of 1 August 1996. He served for 1 year, 6 months, and 12 days
before being honorably discharged effective 4 November 1996 for the
purpose of enrolling in an ROTC program. On 20 April 1998, a Reserve
order was published relieving him from assignment with the Air Reserve
Personnel Center (ARPC) effective 31 March 1998 and concurrently
disenrolling him from the AFROTC program effective the same date.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFOATS/JA recommends denial. JA states the applicant has not provided
sufficient evidence to substantiate his request. The member claims he
did not receive a description of charges until 2004, however, that is
three years after we would have shredded the documents. Unless the
disenrollment was done in absentia, the member was notified and should
have received copies of everything. He did receive a copy of the
order releasing him from the Air Force Reserves as it was provided as
his evidence; therefore, he was fully aware of the SGLI charges.
AFOATS/JA’s complete advisory is at Exhibit B.
NGB/A1POF recommends denial. A1POF states any SGLI deduction
initiated by the MNANG would have ceased upon his discharge on
4 November 1996. A1POF contacted the MNANG and confirmed he was no
longer in the Financial Management (FM) system of the MNANG after his
discharge. A1POF suggests he contact the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service (SDFAS) to have his pay history reviewed.
A1POF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
23 June 2006 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of
the applicant's submission, to include his contention that due to a
unit clerical error he was charged SGLI premiums after his discharge,
we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Deputy Staff
Judge Advocate and the Air National Guard and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our 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.
_______________________________________________________________
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-
2006-01951 in Executive Session on 1 August 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis, III, Member
Ms. Donna D. Jonkoff, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFOATS/JA, dated 14 Jul 05, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated, 27 Feb 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02876
On this same date, his commander approved his request and advised the applicant of the consequences of his request. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states he made a verbal request for a medical waiver or a possible change in degree program. Therefore, after reviewing all the evidence provided, the Board is not persuaded the applicant’s rights were violated, or that he was treated any differently than...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00666
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00666 INDEX NUMBER: 110; 128.10 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge from the Air Force for fraudulent enlistment be voided. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was discharged for fraudulent enlistment...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2001-00122
On 20 May 97, the applicant was advised in writing of HQ AFROTC’s decision, and notified that he would be required to complete the PFT, 1.5 mile run, and meet weight and body fat standards for commissioning. In regards to the applicant’s allegation that the debt of $77,000 is disproportionate, he states that maintaining body fat standards is a training requirement specified in the AFROTC contract. Counsel also asserts that AFOATS/JA glosses over the fact that when the applicant was weighed...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2004-00666A
In his rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation at Exhibit I, the applicant requests that if his debt is not cancelled, it be placed on hold until he has the opportunity to send his DD Form 214 in to show that he has completed two full years of active duty service. He states that HQ AFROTC denied his request for debt cancellation although he has served three years in the Army National Guard (ANG). In that regard, we agree with the determination of the Air Force office of primary responsibility...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02040
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02040 INDEX CODE: 100.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 November 2007 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The debt incurred as a result of his disenrollment from the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) be waived. On 1 August 2005, his detachment commander advised him...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | bc-2002-02911
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2002-02911 INDEX CODE 100.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reason for disenrollment from the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) be changed to “Cadet is disenrolling on grounds of his homosexuality and the military’s current stance on...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00103
He believes it was wrongful for HQ AFROTC to proceed with his disenrollment and recoup his scholarship. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/SGPS recommended denial noting that, on 14 May 02, the applicant completed his initial Department of Defense (DoD) Medical Examination Review Board (DODMERB) Scholarship examination and on his history form he checked “No” regarding any “bedwetting after age 12” and did not mentioned these...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03735
It would also allow the Air Force to determine if he was fit for continued military service and to take the appropriate action. They further noted the applicant claimed that his medical condition began while he was on active duty. Additionally, we note that even though the final decision of AFROTC headquarters was to disenroll him, his AFROTC Detachment commander had recommended he be returned to active duty so he could possibly receive medical attention for his illness.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02408
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states through her grandfather she was medically qualified for a commission in the Air Force, based on the physical examination conduced on 16 January 2004. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Grandfather, undated.
c. In reference to the applicant’s third allegation, he does not specify any particular error that was made. Therefore, they recommend that no change be made to applicant’s military records. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.