RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03593
INDEX NUMBER: 128.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 May 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His military pension be reinstated.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He only served in the Air Force Reserves four years while attending
college. He served an additional 20 years on active duty. He
received his pension from 1992 to 2000 at which time he requested his
pension be held in escrow.
He has attempted to get the problem resolved through letters, personal
visits, etc., without success.
In support of his request, applicant has provided a copy of his DD
Form 214, a copy of a request for retirement pay sent to the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), a copy of a Reserve point
credit summary, a copy of an enlistment contract, and a monthly
retirement and Survivor Benefit Program estimates information sheet.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s military personnel records contain evidence of two
periods of service with the Air Force. The first period of service as
documented on his DD Form 214 shows a release from active duty on 6
Jul 73 with four years active service. The second period of service
is reflected on National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 and documents net
service with the Missouri Air National Guard of one year, four months,
and eight days effective as of his resignation on 28 Oct 92. Combined
with the previous 4 years of active service reflected on his DD Form
214, 4 months and 16 days of Reserve service, the applicant has total
service of 5 years, 8 months, and 24 days.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a
retirement pension. They note that the copy of the DD Form 214
submitted by the applicant contains irregularities and does not match
the form filed in his official records. They note that the DD Form
214 submitted by the applicant contains a different grade, major (O-4)
vice sergeant (E-4), a difference in total active service, 23 years
vice 4 years, and a difference in the decorations awarded. They also
note that block 11a, “Type of transfer or discharge,” reflects release
from active duty. If the applicant had retired, this block would have
indicated “retired.” They also note that the maximum amount shown for
SGLI insurance coverage is incorrect for the period in question.
Finally, they note that the applicant’s DD Form 214 is on an obsolete
version of the form not used during the period in question.
AFPC/DPPRRP notes that the list of awards the applicant is entitled to
is different from those reflected on the DD Form 214 he has submitted.
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the applicant’s case be sent to the Air Reserve
Personnel Center (ARPC) for further evaluation.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant submits copies
of Air National Guard/Reserve Point Credit Summary he states were
issued at the time of his retirement. He states he is researching
income tax returns to support his claim. He also asked for additional
time to conduct research in support of his claim. The applicant was
advised that he could not be given an extension of time, but could
request his application be temporarily withdrawn. The letter advising
him was forwarded on 9 Feb 06 for his response within 30 days. To
date, a response has not been received.
The applicant’s initial response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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. 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
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Additionally, given the
discrepancies identified in the evidence submitted by the applicant,
the Board recommends the applicant’s application be submitted to the
appropriate law enforcement agency for investigation of possible
fraud. Accordingly, the Board finds no basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this application and strongly recommends denial.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2005-
03593 in Executive Session on 4 April 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 22 Dec 05,
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Jan 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Feb 06.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00462
This law states that lieutenant colonels may be considered for selective early retirement by a board if they have failed selection only one time. The applicant did not request to voluntarily retire on 1 October 1993 or an earlier date, so his records met the SERB. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Chair A AFBCMR BC-2006-00462 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00344
However, the Board decided to grant the applicant a measure of relief based on clemency and promoted him to the grade of senior airman with a DOR of 1 Oct 03, which allowed him an opportunity to test for promotion to the grade of SSgt and allow him to retire in that grade. They further note that HYT extensions are designed to address specific problems and issues, not to allow a member the opportunity to test for the next higher grade, which they believe the applicant’s request is based on. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02899
The applicant signed a statement in the remarks section of the AF Form 1160 that indicated, “In lieu of a 2-year remote assignment and under the 7 day retirement option I will accept retirement in the grade of 0- 5 for the purpose of retirement pay.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the applicant’s request. To date, a response has not been received. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02738
The applicant’s complete review is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/JA states they cannot support the applicant's request that he be given a full 30-year retirement in the grade of colonel given that he only served 22 years of actual active duty time. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit H. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01770
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPD recommends denial of applicant’s request stating, in part, applicant’s personnel files show that he is currently not eligible for compensation under CRSC since he did not serve 20 years or more of active duty. Additionally, applicant retired in 1995, several years before the establishment of the CRSC program. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01512
On 26 May 2005, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAFPC) determined the applicant will be advanced to the grade of CMSgt on the retired list when his active service plus his service on the retired list totals 30 years (17 December 2011). It appears that at the time of his retirement he was not considered for a highest grade determination. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03490
Both the applicant’s DD Form 214 and retirement order accurately reflect that, although he held the grade of staff sergeant on his final day of active duty on 28 February 1978, his retirement proceeded under the law that pertains to commissioned officers who have 20 or more years of active service and who also have at least 10 years of active service as a commissioned officer. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRRP recommended...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03407
There were many inconsistencies with the Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program (WBFMP) measurements taken. On 31 Oct 02, applicant voluntarily retired from the Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant for years of service. DPPRRP states on 18 Dec 01, his request for retirement was denied, although there is no indication in his record that his specific request for retirement in lieu of demotion was forwarded to the SAF as an attachment.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01943
He was discharged on 7 January 1976 with a dishonorable discharged. The law that governs retirement of an enlisted member, in 1973, 1976 and today is 10 USC, section 8914 which requires an enlisted member of the Air Force to have at least 20 years Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS) in order to qualify for retirement. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence of error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00803
DPPRRP states the DD Form 214 records a member’s actual TAFMS so, because the applicant did not actually serve on active duty from 1-3 October 1977, his DD Form 214 does not require a correction. _________________________________________________________________ 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...