RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00306
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document - Armed Forces of the United States be changed to reflect 6 years.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not afforded the opportunity to enlist with the Missouri Air National Guard (MOANG) for six years.
The recruiting office was not proactive to ensure that her enlistment would be for six years. The applicant believes she should have been allowed to enlist for six years to qualify for an enlistment incentive.
In support of her request, applicant provided copies of her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and DD Form 4.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant served on active duty in the Regular Air Force from 18 May 03 through 30 May 08. She was released from active duty and transferred to the MOANG under the Palace Chase program with a Military Service Obligation of more than 120 days. Her DD Form 4 indicates she enlisted in the MOANG for a period of 1 year, and 29 months. Applicant is currently serving in the California ANG.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PS recommends denial. A1PS states they concur with the Subject Matter Expert (SME) that there is no basis for the members complaint that substantiates an error or injustice. The SME states the enlistment contract did not deny the member any benefits. Additionally, because the enlistment was a Palace Chase commitment, the applicant was not eligible for any type of enlistment incentive regardless of the length of contract.
The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 13 Feb 09, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response has not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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 Docket Number BC-2009-00306 in Executive Session on 7 April 2009, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2009-00306 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 6 Feb 09.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 09.
Panel Chair
2
3
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02168
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02168 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His expiration term of service (ETS) should be 7 Mar 15 rather than 7 Mar 17. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02887
She missed the Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) Captain Promotion Board, and had to wait until May 07, to meet the FY08 Captain Promotion Board, where she was selected for promotion. She entered the ANG on 3 Aug 06, as a first lieutenant and was promoted to the grade of captain by the FY08 Captains Promotion Board effective 1 Oct 07. Therefore, the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts its rationale as the basis for our...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03576
DPP states that since the applicant never enlisted with the --- ANG or any other ANG unit she cannot be re-instated. DPPRSR states that the PALACE CHASE program requires the member to sign a contract in which the member agrees to serve two times whatever is currently owed to the Air Force in an Air Reserve Component unit. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Apr 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04344
According to her MPF, members separated under the FY10/11 FMP received between $20,000 and $22,000 in separation pay. The applicant contends that she should have been provided separation pay as she was separated under the provisionsof the FY10/11 Force Management Program (FY10/11FMP); however, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, we are not convinced she was entitled toseparation pay. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-00444
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-00444 INDEX CODE: 108.00 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show that he was medically retired from the Air Force on 8 June 2007 due to a back injury considered in the line of duty (ILOD). On 28 March 2006, he had requested an LOD determination for a lower...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01297
On 30 Dec 12, the applicant resigned from active duty due to completion of required active service and transferred to the Alabama Air National Guard to complete her military service obligation. On 9 Jan 13, she signed AF IMT 133, Oath of Office (Military Personnel) and NGB Form 337, Oaths of Office. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that AF IMT 133, Oath of Office (Military Personnel),...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00011
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00011 INDEX CODE: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The separation code (SPD) of MGQ (Intradepartmental Transfer) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty be changed to allow him to receive medical benefits. Those members separated under...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03978
We recommend the applicant pursue correction of his record through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. Provided the requested correction is made, we would be willing to reconsider this case to determine the appropriate correction of his Air Force military record. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01296
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01296 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her narrative reason for separation be changed from Miscellaneous/General Reasons to Palace Chase. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The narrative reason for separation is incorrect as she went through the Palace Chase program under the 2014 Limited Active Duty Service Commitment (LADSC) Waiver Program. We took notice...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03680
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03680 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Therefore, after careful review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, including her nursing license, we believe she is entitled to constructive service credit from the time she began working full time, and her date of...