RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-02307
INDEX CODE: 111.02
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She receive the appropriate amount of pay and points toward her retirement
and she receive a letter of apology.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her superintendent reprised against her for making a protected
communication by not extending her active duty orders on or about 29 Sep
06.
In support of her request, applicant provides a copy of the final response
to her Inspector General (IG) complaint.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) reflects the applicant is
currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of staff sergeant,
having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 06.
The applicant has been credited with 13 years and 3 months of satisfactory
service.
The applicant filed an IG complaint containing one allegation that the
superintendent of the Joint Service Honor Guard (JSHG) reprised against her
for making a protected disclosure to the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO)
Office. An investigation was conducted and the investigating officer
concluded that the applicant’s allegation was unsubstantiated. The SAF/IGQ
reviewer disagreed with the analysis concluding that the preponderance of
evidence supports a substantiated finding. On 4 Sep 07, the DoD/IG agreed
with this determination.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/A1E recommends approval. A1E states that based on the substantiated
findings of reprisal, it is reasonable to surmise that the applicant would
have been continued on active duty orders during the period 30 Sep 06 to 30
Sep 07. The complete AFRC/A1E evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit
B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Aug
08 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of an injustice. Noting that the IG investigation substantiated
reprisal, we find it reasonable to believe the applicant would have been
continued on active duty orders for the period of 30 Sep 06 to 30 Sep 07.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we recommend the applicant's record be
corrected as indicated below. With regard to the applicant's request for a
letter of apology, we advise the applicant that this matter is not within
the purview of this Board and therefore deny this portion of her request.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:
a. She was awarded an additional 62 paid active duty points for
retention/retirement year 12 March 2006 to 11 March 2007.
b. She was awarded an additional 163 paid active duty points for
retention/retirement year 12 March 2007 to 11 March 2008.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-02307
in Executive Session on 24 Sep 08 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member
Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following
documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2008-02307 was
considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jun 08, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1E, dated 7 Aug 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRB, dated 22 Aug 08
Exhibit D. I.G. Report of Investigation, dated 18 Jul 07,
(withdrawn).
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR BC-2008-02307
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 Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, be corrected to show that:
a. She was awarded an additional 62 paid active duty points
for retention/retirement year 12 March 2006 to 11 March 2007.
b. She was awarded an additional 163 paid active duty points
for retention/retirement year 12 March 2007 to 11 March 2008.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00354
He contends his request was disapproved because he had filed an age discrimination lawsuit. According to HQ AFRC/DPZ (Exhibit B), the applicant was previously assigned to the Air Force Reserve as an ART and as a Title V civilian employee (Non-ART employee). His civilian Air Force supervisor explained that the applicant had been allowed to perform an annual active duty tour (ADT) on or about 24 Jan-6 Feb 93, used military leave on or about 11-17 May 93, for a total of four weeks of military...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02704
AFRC/A1A recommends denial, indicating there is no basis to assume the applicant would have been selected for position vacancy promotion by the lieutenant colonel promotion board, or hired as an AGR. We note the applicant filed an IG complaint alleging, among other things, that members of his chain of command unfairly denied him the opportunity to apply for multiple AGR positions and damaged his reputation by providing negative references to potential employers in retaliation for his...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02503
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/JA recommends relief, and states, in part; the applicant suffered a downgraded EPR due to lack of training and lack of response from her supervisors or chain of command. The evidence of record clearly establishes that she was not being properly trained and that her chain-of-command was derelict in training her. At the request of the applicant’s counsel, the DoD/IG reexamined the documentation...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03472
It was recommended she be allowed to retire on her established retirement date of 19 Aug 09. e. On 14 Sep 09, AFRC/A1 notified the RMG that since the applicant is currently retired that she would need to file for incapacitation pay with the AFBCMR. The complete AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit H. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/JA and AFRC/SG did not and are not practicing due diligence with regard...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04795
Her record be corrected to reflect that she was selected for the position of Director, Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Management Office (REAMO) effective Jan 09. As to a violation of Title 10 USC 1034b, the applicant appears to have the opinion that she was the only qualified applicant and would have been selected but for reprisal by the Deputy AF/RE substantiated in the SAF/IGS ROI. AF/JAA states that the applicant was not the only AGR who was the top candidate for the Director, REAMO...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03153
He be reinstated as an active member of the Air Force Reserve, effective 15 October 2010, with award of IDT points consistent with the average IDT points he earned between 1 March 2008 and 31 March 2010. In this respect, we believe the evidence provided makes it clear that a serious personality conflict existed between the applicant and certain members of his chain of command as validated by Inspector General (IG) complaints filed by his supervisory chain and the applicant himself, as well...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-02196
Her case was referred to the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) when her AD orders were terminated. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/A1BB recommends approval of active duty pay and points for the period of 27 May 07 through 31 Jul...
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,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05912
In addition, the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG DoD/MRI) concurred with the determination, approved the report, and substantiated the allegations (Exhibit B). We note that based on the Report of Investigation (ROI) from the SAF/IG the applicant was the victim of reprisal under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034) by his former commander who denied his reenlistment and attendance at the Chief Executive Course (CEC). Other than the comments in the ROI, the applicant...