Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03627
Original file (BC-2006-03627.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03627
            INDEX CODE:  123.04

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be changed to show he was deployed overseas to  Korea  from
25 February 1978 to 21 March 1978.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He went on active duty in support of Operation Team Spirit  in  Korea.
This Temporary Duty (TDY) is not indicated in his records.

In support of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  copies  of
military travel orders and a National  Guard  Bureau  (NGB)  Form  22,
Report of Separation and Record of Service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force  on  9  July  1970.   He
enlisted in the Vermont Air National Guard (VTANG) on 2 July 1975.  He
was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant with a date
of rank (DOR) of 7 September 1997.  He was transferred to the  Retired
Reserve on 23 October 2006.  He had served over 36 years for pay.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1P0F recommends denial.  A1POF  states  the  VTANG  verified  the
applicant did deploy to Korea however, he deployed for  only  25 days,
not the 31 days necessary for him to qualify for awards normally given
for such participation.

A1P0F’s complete 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 2
March 2007 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  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
National  Guard  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.  While he was originally  on
orders to Korea for 31 days, he actually only spent 25 days on  active
duty.  As he did not serve for the entire 31 days, he is not  eligible
to receive a Korean ribbon. Additionally, there is are  no  provisions
to document overseas service  on  NGB  Form  22.   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-
2006-03627 in Executive Session on 10 April 2007, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
      Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member






The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1P0F, dated 21 Feb 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 March 2007.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03015

    Original file (BC-2006-03015.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    His date of rank to first lieutenant was 20 May 2003. Applicant was eligible for the fiscal year 2006 (FY06) ANG Captain’s Promotion list. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of CAPTAIN, Air Force Reserve, with a Date of Rank (DOR) and a Promotion Effective Date (PED) of 20 May 2005 rather than 1...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01486

    Original file (BC-2006-01486.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His commander and the Adjutant General (TAG) of the State of Indiana recommended him for promotion consideration to the grade of colonel by the Spring 2006 Air National Guard Colonel Review Board that convened on 1 March 2006. His promotion package for consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Spring 2006 Air National Guard Colonel Review Board was submitted to NGB but was not in turn...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03478

    Original file (BC-2006-03478.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She contends her DOR should be the date she became eligible. Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36- 2502, Promotion of Airman, explicitly states that “…the immediate commander must first recommend the airman.” This recommendation must be based on a period of time to allow sufficient evaluation of the member’s performance. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03307

    Original file (BC-2006-03307.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The letter asked that he call and he did so numerous times, but received no answer. He returned to duty with the ANG on 20 November 1984 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 1994. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While the applicant appreciates the ANG’s recommendation that his former grade be reinstated, he provides evidence he was within weeks or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03365

    Original file (BC-2006-03365.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His commander denied the request by the Secretary of the Air Force’s (SECAF’s) resolution of his application for transfer to the Retired Reserve. On 29 June 2004, HQ USAF/JAG found his package legally sufficient and recommended he be transferred to the Retired Reserve with the caveat that the SECAF determine his retirement grade. It appears the time period noted on the AFF IMT 642 was during 2002 when the applicant was working with the ANG Crisis Action Team (CAT) at the National...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03145

    Original file (BC-2005-03145.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was told repeatedly during this time that all AGR, Title 10 members were put into “Returned To Duty” status since active duty couldn’t tell the ANG what to do with their people. In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and copies of pertinent medical records, Congressional inquiries, retirement documents, and MEB and IPEB documentation. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02838

    Original file (BC-2006-02838.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His time in grade (TIG) requirement from 1Lt to Captain was met on 3 August 2006. Therefore, his promotion to captain should be retroactive to that date. 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 National Guard office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03978

    Original file (BC-2006-03978.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and a copy of his point credit summary and his AGR application. As of 10 May 2006, he has almost 10 years of active duty time. 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 National Guard office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03240

    Original file (BC-2005-03240.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After calling the Inspector General (IG) he was told the JAG NCO was no longer with the JAG and all his files had been lost. On 31 December 2004, after 11 years, 11 months, and 22 days of satisfactory service towards a Reserve retirement, he was honorably discharged from the MIANG with a Separation Program Designator Code of FTY, meaning “Resignation for own Convenience.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1POF reviewed this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02632

    Original file (BC-2006-02632.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 June 1985. Between 4 June 1989 and 3 June 1992 his record indicates service with a Reserve component where he accumulated three satisfactory years of service towards a Reserve retirement – part of which the record shows was spent in the CAANG. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...