RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03361
INDEX CODE: 135.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:4 MAY 2008
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her records be corrected to reflect:
a. Her date of rank (DOR) as July 2005.
b. She receive points for annual training (AT) for fiscal
year (FY) 2005.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her promotion was never properly addressed. Her AT was overlooked and
her orders were never received in 2005-2006. She attached a copy of
an Inspector General (IG) complaint she was going to file.
In support of her appeal, applicant submitted a copy of her IG
complaint, E-mails, excerpt from AFI 36-2502, Chapter 4, Single Unit
Retrieval Format (SURF).
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves (AFRes)
in the grade of senior airman (SRA).
EXAMINER’S NOTE: On 20 December 2006, the applicant was notified that
her promotion to the rank SSgt (E-5) was approved with a DOR effective
of 1 July 2005. Therefore, the remaining issue for consideration by
the Board is the AT points.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFRC/DPM recommends the requested relief be denied. They state
that according to the documentation the applicant provided she was not
denied AT, but did not want to perform the required AT due to the
location that the AT was offered.
A complete copy of the AFRC/DPM evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states she
submitted her orders for AT for approval in Air Force Reserve Order
Writing System (AROWS). Her application was routed to Lt Col W. and
he approved them. On April 25th Lt Col W. pulled them back and she
never received orders and could not perform her AT.
She hopes her AT points will be added to her file and that she receive
the difference in pay when performing her 2006 IDT’s as an E-4 when it
should be E-5 with 5 years of service (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 an error or an 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
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered
either an error or an injustice. As stated, the applicant was
notified that her promotion to the rank of E-5 was approved with a DOR
of 1 July 2005. The applicant contends that she was not able to
perform her AT because she never received orders. The applicant
submitted a copy of the Air Force Reserve Order Writing System (AROWS)
reflecting her request for AT was submitted, however, they were denied
because the training dates were incorrect. The applicant indicates
she did everything she could to try and resolve the issues of her AT.
However, the Board finds no evidence has been submitted by the
applicant to support her contentions that she used due diligence in
requesting her AT. Therefore, in view of the foregoing and 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
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session 29 March 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 20 Dec 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 07.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2000-02768A
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 October 2002, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered applicant’s request that the Article 15 imposed on 16 February 1994, and the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 April 1998, be removed from his records and he be sent to a Replacement Training Unit (RTU) to be re-qualified and reinstated in an active status as an Air National Guard (ANG) fighter pilot in...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03659
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The law provides benefits if an individual separates with less than a full term of service for hardship, service-connected disability, disability existing prior to entering active duty, physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force. Airmen are given entry-level separation uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00590 (Case 3) INDEX CODE: 107.00, 111.00 COUNSEL: AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Evaluation (LOE), AF Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation Sheet), dated 7 Sep 96, be removed from his records; and, that he be provided a letter of apology from the evaluator (Lt Col K---) of...
The applicant should submit a request for the removal of the Article 15 to the commander who directed that it be placed in his records. In addition, the majority of the Board is sufficiently persuaded that the Article 15 should also be removed from the applicant’s record. Based on the available evidence of record, I find no basis upon which to favorably consider this portion of the application, and strongly recommend you deny the majority’s recommendation to remove the contested Article 15...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02894
Prior to entering active duty, applicant was advised, in a letter dated 29 Jan 03 that based on the current board schedules he would be eligible for promotion IPZ by the CY05A Lt Col board. Applicant cites DOD Instruction 1320.13, para 4.1 and Table E2.T1, for the proposition that he should have been required to meet the CY06 promotion board IPZ with his original Air Force Academy graduate year group rather than having been “accelerated” to meet a promotion board a year earlier. Title...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03878
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03878 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 JUN 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The loss of good (satisfactory) years from Feb 03 to Sep 05 be reinstated, and she receive an enlisted incentive bonus payment and debt relief in the amount of $771.00 for Servicemember Group...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03633
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/A1BR recommends the requested relief be denied. A complete copy of the HQ AFRC/A1BR evaluation is attached at Exhibit B. We took note of the applicant’s contentions and the documentation provided in support of his request for an In Line of Duty Determination for sleep apnea and retroactive lost participation points and time in grade for retirement from December 2004 through October 2005.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a member of the Air Force Reserve, was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) when her disability case was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) in December 1999, for a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder. Counsel provided a statement supporting the applicant’s requests to change the IG findings; credit satisfactory service to 20 plus years; change the AF...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00966
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by AFRC/JA at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/JA recommends partial relief by removing the OPR. The IG report provides while there was no proven abuse of authority the issuing officer and his commander both, after learning the facts, stated they would have acted differently,...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01037 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to reflect that she was not demoted from the Reserve grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) to staff sergeant (SSgt). In support of her appeal, the applicant provided documentation pertaining to the demotion action,...