Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01598
Original file (BC-2006-01598.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01598
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 Nov 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the rank of major.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been commissioned as a  major.   He  is  board  certified  in
Internal Medicine and believes when his application  for  commissioning  was
processed,  his  board  certification  was  not  used  in  determining   his
commissioning grade.

In support of his request, the applicant provided documents  extracted  from
his military personnel records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 9 May 2003, the applicant was  appointed  into  the  Air  Force  Reserves
(AFRes) as a captain based on receiving nine years, three months,  and  five
days service credit for his education, internship,  residency  programs  and
experience.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPA recommends denial.  DPA states IAW AFI 36-2005, Table 2.4,  Service
Credit on Appointment as a Medical or Dental Officer,  Rule  1,  2,  and  3,
service credit is not awarded  for  board  certification  but  credited  for
completion of the  residency  program.   Therefore,  no  additional  service
credit is awarded for the Internal Medicine Board Certification.





DPA’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 23 June 2006, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant 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.  Evidence has not been  presented  which
would lead us to believe that the regulations in effect  at  the  time  were
not appropriately applied or that he was treated differently than others  in
similar situations.  After reviewing the available  evidence  of  record  it
appears that his grade and date of rank upon enlistment on 9 May  2003  into
the AFRes were properly determined.  Accordingly, we agree with the  opinion
and recommendation of the Air Force 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.  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 the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice; the application was denied without  a
personal appearance; and 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-
01598 in Executive Session on 26 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                 Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 May 2006, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPA, dated 15 June 2006.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 June 2006.



                 JAY H. JORDAN
                 Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02500

    Original file (BC-2006-02500.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02500 INDEX CODE: 126.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 FEBUARY 2008 __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Unfavorable Information File (UIF) located in his Reserve record be removed. Applicant states the UIF must be removed from his record before he can be considered for such...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00257

    Original file (BC-2007-00257.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    INDEX CODE: 110.01 AFBCMR BC-2007-00257 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00641

    Original file (BC 2014 00641.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appointment date has been determined to be the date SECDEF approves the appointment or the date the oath was administered, whichever is later. RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. _________voted to correct the records and has submitted a minority report which is provided at Exhibit G. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 14, w/atchs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00979

    Original file (BC-2006-00979.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPA states that the applicant’s ISLRS time was correctly credited to his TFCSD according to regulations. DPA states if the Board decides to grant the applicant’s request, recommend the applicant records be corrected to reflect his TFCSD and TYSD as 26 December 1988 and an ISLRS break in service of five years and nine months. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02120

    Original file (BC-2008-02120.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant has provided a copy of his DD Form 214, an Air Force Reserve Officer Data Verification Brief (DVB) dated 30 May 2008, and a Virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF) Promotion Information printout dated 30 May 2008. DPA attached comments from the Air Force Recruiting Information Support System (AFRISS-R) which reflects that on 2 June 2006, the applicant said he was having second thoughts and no longer wanted to be an IMA officer. Six weeks after...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01406

    Original file (BC-2009-01406.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Former officers with a break in service are not eligible for promotion for one year after accession. His allegation that the recruiters lost his application package causing him to miss the CY09 Major Position Vacancy Board is without merit as his break in service would not have allowed him to meet that board in any case. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00077

    Original file (BC-2006-00077.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, after the transfer, the KYANG informed him they would not honor the commission that he had been approved for until there was a unit vacancy for a weather officer. He had served almost 30 years and was serving in the grade of SMSgt at the time of his transfer to the Retired Reserve. It appears the applicant has been the victim of unfortunate timing at several times in his career; however, in order to receive retired pay in an officer grade, the member must be commissioned as an...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02055

    Original file (BC-2012-02055.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since the applicant did not obtain a position, or take an oath of office to accept the commission, and her military service obligation expired, she was discharged from the Air Force. Therefore, the applicant’s break in service was the result of her being discharged due her military service obligation and no Oath of Office being administered for the Air Force Reserve ARPC/DPA complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00998

    Original file (BC-2013-00998.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In addition, the Air Force Instruction (AFI) stated that an officer transferring into the Air Force should not be given a DOR that subjects them to a promotion board within one year of the transfer or without a completed officer performance report (OPR) on file. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00998

    Original file (BC 2013 00998.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In addition, the Air Force Instruction (AFI) stated that an officer transferring into the Air Force should not be given a DOR that subjects them to a promotion board within one year of the transfer or without a completed officer performance report (OPR) on file. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit...