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 CONTENDS THAT:
He never received a UIF and was honorably separated because of his non-
promotion to a permanent position. Applicant has a deep desire to continue
to serve in the Air Force and has been offered an opportunity to join the
active Reserves at Los Angles Air Force Base. Applicant states the UIF
must be removed from his record before he can be considered for such an
appointment. Applicant further states if an UIF had been implemented on
him it would have been removed after two years. He states it has been one
year and nine months since he left the active Air Force and such a removal
would seem to be in the best interest of both himself and the Air Force.
In support of the application, the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
__________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Data extracted from the Personnel Data System reflects that on 1 June 1994,
applicant was appointed as a second lieutenant in the Air Force and on 18
February 2005 he was involuntary released with an honorable discharge.
The AF Form 3070, Record of Nonjudicial Punishment Proceedings signed by
the applicant on 3 January 2005 states the nonjudicial punishment actions
would be filed in applicants UIF.
__________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ ARPC/DPA recommends denial. DPA states the applicant’s record indicates
he has a UIF with an expiration date of 2 January 2007. In addition, a
review of the applicant’s records shows he signed the AF Form 3070
acknowledging establishment of the UIF. The UIF does exist and there were
no errors found with the applicant’s punishment, therefore, they recommend
no relief be granted.
A complete copy of the HQ ARPC/DPA evaluation is at Exhibit B.
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22
September 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no response (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 an error or injustice that would warrant his UIF being removed
from his Reserve record. 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 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. 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-2004-
02500 in Executive Session on 24 October 2006, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 August 2006, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, Hq ARPC/DPA, dated 18 September 2006.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 September 2006.
JAY H. JORDAN
Panel Chair
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC
[pic]
Office of the Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR
1535 Command Dr, EE Wing, 3rd Flr
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
Dear XXXXXXX
Reference your application, AFBCMR BC-2006-02500 submitted under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603 (Section 1552, 10 USC).
After careful consideration of your application and military records,
the Board determined that the evidence you presented did not demonstrate
the existence of material error or injustice. Accordingly, the Board
denied your application.
You have the right to submit newly discovered relevant evidence for
consideration by the Board. In the absence of such additional evidence, a
further review of your application is not possible.
BY DIRECTION OF THE PANEL CHAIR
GREGORY E.
JOHNSON
Chief
Examiner
Air Force Board
for Correction
of Military
Records
Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01598
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. 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. Accordingly, we agree with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02005
The Board determined that the military records should be corrected as set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff United States Air Force. It may also be necessary for the DFAS-DE to communicate directly with you to obtain additional information to ensure the proper settlement of your claim. Copy of Directive cc: DFAS-DE AFBCMR BC-2006-02005 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00257
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-02319
AFBCMR BC-2007-02319 INDEX CODE: 135.02 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: XXXXXXXXXXX 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00777
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00777 INDEX NUMBER: 100.03 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 16 Sep 07 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her record reflect she elected reduced coverage under the Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) effective 1 Sep 05, and is entitled to a $186.00 refund of premiums for the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01769
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He does not have a DD Form 214 showing active duty time while serving in the Air Force Reserve from 1954 to 1966. On 5 Dec 43, he was commissioned in the Reserve grade of second lieutenant in the US Army Air Corp and entered extended active duty (EAD). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02614
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02614 INDEX CODE: 112.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 MARCH 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) and current rank be adjusted. The DPPAES evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01536
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Base on available records, the applicant, was an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) enlisted member with 17 years of satisfactory federal service. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/DPM reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating, in part, applicant states he completed all...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02399
On 13 August 2002, applicant was notified by his commander of his intent to recommend he be discharged from the Air Force under the provisions of AFPD 36-32, Air Force Military Training and AFI 36- 3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, chapter 5, section 5C, Defective Enlistments, Paragraph 5.15 under Basis for Fraudulent Entry. On 21 August 2004, he was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen under Basis for Discharge for Fraudulent Entry...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02100
The applicant was credited with the proper active and inactive duty points. Moreover, the source documents provided by the applicant, verify active duty points were correctly recorded on the point credit summaries and did not refute the existing inactive duty points. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Reserve Personnel Center and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.