ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03902
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be granted service credit for the time he was involuntarily separated
from service.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE
In February 2006, the applicant applied to the AFBCMR to have his
discharge upgraded from under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) to
honorable. He had been discharged for non-participation and had received
an UOTHC discharge; however, only the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) can
approve an UOTHC discharge. The Indiana Air National Guard (INANG) only
had the authority to discharge the applicant with either an honorable or a
general discharge under the circumstances. The ANG Office of Primary
Responsibility (OPR), noting the improper service characterization, agreed
with the applicant and recommended that the AFBCMR grant his request.
The AFBCMR granted his application on 6 June 2006 and his discharge was
subsequently upgraded (Exhibit A).
On 5 August 2008, the Board received a request for reconsideration for
relief related to his discharge upgrade. He contends because his
discharge was upgraded and he has enlisted with an Air Force Reserve unit
in Indiana, he should receive credit for the time he was involuntarily
discharged from military service.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PS concurs with the ANG subject matter expert (SME) and recommends
denial of the applicants request for participation point credit during the
time he was involuntarily discharged. As the applicant did not serve
during the time frame indicated, he is not, by regulation, authorized to
receive participation points.
A1PS’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26
Oct 09 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of
his appeal, we find that the applicant has failed 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 probable material error or injustice; 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 this application in Executive
Session on 7 October 2009 and 30 November 2009, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
The following documentary evidence with regard to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-00541 was considered:
Exhibit A. Memorandum for the Chief of Staff, dated
7 Jun 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. DD Form 149, Applicant, dated 11 Nov 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 16 Dec 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Oct 09.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03852
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03852 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be entitled to Post Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence (PDMRA). ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS concurs with A1PR and recommends denial of the applicants stated request for the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04184
A1POE states, in accordance with the applicants point credit summary, he did not participate in enough UTA days from his initial enlistment date of 20 Sep 2008 to the date of the erroneous discharge, on 1 Aug 2010. ________________________________________________________________ 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;...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-04301
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He met the eligibility requirements to participate in the ANG FY08 ACP program as he was on one continuous active duty order for the entire FY performing the duties of an ANG pilot during that time frame. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02883
Any and or all ANG and Army records damaged by the Revocation of Flying Order action be corrected. During this time, he received a negative OPR from his AFR unit. He was never informed his Flying Order would be permanently revoked, in fact, he was told by his former ANG commander that his record would not be damaged in any way should he be unable to return to Oklahoma for continuation of T-37 training with only one day’s notice.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01054
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on the available evidence, the applicant was a member of the USAR and was discharged from the USAR on 23 Oct 05. Regardless, when he enlisted in the ANG, on 24 Oct 05, he was given 3 years and 9 months credit as an E-5 since his DOR was adjusted to 1 Jan 02 at the time of enlistment. Based upon the available evidence of record, the applicants DOR was adjusted based on the policies in effect at the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02146
He made every attempt to work with his assigned ANG unit to receive the required points, but was informed that he would not be able to conduct any drill days because he didnt display a commitment and clear understanding of how he wanted to proceed as a member of the ANG. The POC of the previous unit notified the applicant that the unit commander inquired and found no slanderous comments made about the applicant between the two units. Leadership noted that ADLS was not required at the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05059
On 5 Oct 11, SAF/JAR notified the applicant of the Secretarys determination that she should be released from active duty, indicating the applicant obtained retention under the provisions of sanctuary as the result of an error and therefore approved her release from active duty. At the time of her request for sanctuary, she was on active duty orders for 365 days. However, an error occurred when the applicant was released from active duty on 1 Oct 10, and because she invoked sanctuary,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03031
JA states that based on the facts presented in the NGB opinions, JA finds their responses to be legally sufficient and concurs with the recommendations to deny the applicant's requests for corrective action related to ACP payments, Board# V0611A, AGR separation from ANG Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) consideration, and TERA. Counsels complete response is at Exhibit N. _______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01044
His retired pay is based on 2,680 retirement points and over 33 years of service for basic pay in the grade of technical sergeant. The complete DPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and provided copies of documents associated with the events cited in his appeal. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01044
His retired pay is based on 2,680 retirement points and over 33 years of service for basic pay in the grade of technical sergeant. The complete DPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and provided copies of documents associated with the events cited in his appeal. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the...