RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01647
INDEX CODE: 135.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 DEC 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He receive active duty points, service, and pay for the period 21 Feb
95 to 18 Aug 95.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should have received active duty points, service and pay for the
period 21 Feb 95 to 18 Aug 95, and should not have been assigned to
temporary duty (TDY).
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement
and documents from his military personnel records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
A DD Form 1610, Request and Authorization for TDY Travel of DOD
Personnel, indicates the applicant, a major in the Air Force Reserve
at the time, received orders for TDY to Hautes-Rivieres, France, to
Stuttgart, Germany, for the period 21 Feb 95 to 18 Aug 95. The
purpose of the TDY was to conduct official business for Headquarters,
United States European Command in connection with the Military-to-
Military Contact Program.
By Special Order AGA-111, dated 13 Jan 03, the applicant was
voluntarily ordered to extended active duty for the period 16 Jan 03
to 30 Jun 03 in the grade of lieutenant colonel.
Applicant was relieved from active duty, and retired effective 1 Jul
03, in the grade of lieutenant colonel. He was credited with 20 years
and 4 days of active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/A1X recommends denial noting that in accordance with the
governing instruction a member desiring to invoke a claim to sanctuary
protection under 10 U.S.C., Section 12686, must do so while on active
duty (other than for training) and in the sanctuary. According to
AFRC/A1X, the applicant was neither on active duty nor in sanctuary
for the time frame above; making him ineligible to invoke a claim for
sanctuary protection. He received inactive duty training (IDT) credit
for the period of 21 Feb 95 to 18 Aug 95.
In AFRC/A1X’s view, there was insufficient documentation to make a
determination as to why the applicant’s commander/supervisor chose to
put him on TDY orders rather than active duty.
A complete copy of the AFRC/A1X evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 4 Aug
06 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. The applicant's complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly
noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and the
documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficient to
convince us that corrective action is warranted. The evidence of
record indicates the applicant received orders for TDY for the period
21 Feb 95 to 18 Aug 95 to conduct official business for Headquarters,
United States European Command, in connection with the Military-to-
Military Contact Program. After a thorough review of facts and
circumstances of this case, no evidence has been presented which shows
to our satisfaction the applicant was improperly placed in a TDY
status, or that he was entitled to receive active duty points,
service, and pay for the period 21 Feb 95 to 18 Aug 95. In view of
the foregoing, and in the absence of sufficient evidence to the
contrary, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of
primary responsibility (OPR) and conclude the applicant has failed to
sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an
error or an injustice. Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2006-01647 in Executive Session on 27 Sep 06, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Marilyn M. Thomas, Vice Chair
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 May 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1X, dated 25 Jul 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Aug 06.
MARILYN M. THOMAS
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01847
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPX recommended denial indicating the applicant made no claim for sanctuary protection while serving on active duty (other than for training). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 16 Jul 04 for review and response. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00342
Between 1998 and 2001 prior to his activation, his civilian physicians had treated his Anxiety Disorder with various medications. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/DPM recommends granting Item A by awarding the applicant 10 active duty pay and points for the 1-10 Feb 04 TDY to Lackland AFB, TX, because he should have been on active duty orders at that time. Based on the available documentation, the Consultant concludes the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02182
The applicant performed as a recruiter for only 123 days after the 21 Jun 00 date. DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the criteria for awarding of both AF Recruiting Ribbon and the award of two points for WAPS testing is established in MPFM 00-39 and attachments. The attachment to MPFM 00-39 specifying the guidelines states in the introduction,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05004
10 U.S.C, § 12686(a) and AFI 36-2131 do not permit the Air Force to require waivers for members who are ordered to active duty for a period of 180 days or more. A complete copy of the AFMOA/SGHI evaluation is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel disagrees with AFMOA/SGHIs recommendation, and again points-out the applicant was placed on orders well in excess of 179 days while in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 01653
On 3 Dec 09, the applicant requested a waiver to extend his MSD from 1 Mar 10 to 9 Aug 10, to allow him to complete a 2009 Retirement/Retention (R/R) year, be properly credited for 18 years of service and entry into retirement sanctuary. RGM/CC states service members must complete a minimum requirement of 50 points per R/R year to obtain retirement credit for a satisfactory year. Finally, the applicants counsel states that the applicant actually performed 18 years of service, yet was not...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03160
When she found out that she was in the sanctuary zone, she tried to claim "sanctuary" and has been trying ever since with no assistance. Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ USAF/JAG recommended denial, indicating that to receive the benefits of the sanctuary zone, the applicant must have requested sanctuary protection while on active duty in a non-training...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01685
Applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) profile follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL PROMOTION EVALUATION 05 Aug 93 4 22 Feb 94 5 23 Jan 95 5 ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that after a complete review of the applicant’s official military record and the provided documentation, they were unable to verify a recommendation or award of the requested decorations. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00705
In his application for extended active duty, he indicated he was hospitalized after being shot down in the North Sea and later rescued from a rubber life boat, and that he was suspended from all flying duty as a result of this and subsequent combat experiences. On his fifth mission, the pilot ditched the plane at sea after it was severely shot up. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPR reports that they researched the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01767
According to AFRC/A1B, the applicant has not provided sufficient information to validate that she was eligible for early retirement as a result of not being afforded priority placement to an authorized vacancy. Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence the applicant was eligible for early retirement as a result of not being afforded priority...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01919
As a result of the accident, he had severe back problems, which have worsened over time. He enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 9 December 1991. Had his back condition been determined to have been directly aggravated in the line of duty while performing inactive duty training or active duty, his service and DVA medical records indicate the condition would have been rated 10 percent resulting in disability discharge with severance pay but not entitlement to disability retirement.