RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-039878
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His date of rank (DOR) to the grade of captain (Capt) be changed to 16
Aug 89
2. His DOR to the grade of major (Maj) be changed to 4 Oct 01.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was commissioned in the Air Force in May 85 and served on active duty
until May 1990. On 1 Jun 90, he separated from active duty and was placed
in the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) until May 98. He was promoted to Capt
on 16 Aug 89.
He entered the Army National Guard on 4 Oct 01 in the grade of Capt;
however, his DOR was incorrectly entered as 4 Oct 01. He was informed his
DOR was changed due to his break in service and branch transfer to the
Army, so he did not question the change.
He was made aware of the error in his DOR when he entered the Air National
Guard (ANG) in Nov 07. He served in the Obligated Reserve Section (ORS)
from 1 Jun 90 to 30 May 93; Non-Obligated Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS)
thru 30 May 95. He was placed on the Inactive Status List Reserve Section
(ISLRS) from 31 May 95 to 31 May 98.
His transfer in service resulted in many errors in his military records and
had a detrimental effect on his career progression. He has missed at least
eight years of promotion to major and the associated pay increases.
A correction to his DOR will provide him with a rank that is suitable and
commensurate with his age and experience level within his current ANG unit.
His total military and civilian service and experience more than justify
the corrections to his DOR and will allow him to fill a key leadership
position that will help his unit better meet mission requirements.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a support letter, his DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and his
promotion information sheet.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the
appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits B and C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PS concurs with the Subject Matter Expert (SME) opinion which states
it appears the applicant was given an incorrect DOR when he was appointed
in the Army; however, the SME is not familiar with Army service date
computations and, therefore, cannot verify if the applicant’s DOR was
incorrect. The SME recommends the applicant request this information from
the Army.
A1PS cannot make a recommendation as the applicant was assigned to the Army
during the time in question.
The complete A1PS evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 Dec
09 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has not exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. After a thorough review of the evidence presented in this case and a
review by the SAF/MRB Legal Advisor, we have determined the applicant has
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. In that regard, we note
that the Air Force office of primary responsibility has advised they cannot
make a definitive determination of what the applicant’s date of rank should
be corrected to since the date of rank was awarded by the Army. 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.
Therefore, at this time, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_______________________________________________________________
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 this application in Executive
Session on 26 Aug 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2009-03978:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Oct 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ ARPC/DPP, dated 21 Jul 09.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 2 Dec 09 w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Dec 09.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00796
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 13 Sep 07, the applicant enlisted in the CT ANG for a period of 6 years. Without any actual reasoning the SME cannot determine that he had not in fact requested the 6 year enlistment. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02538
When enlisted promotions in the Air National Guard are approved a promotion order is written using the promotion board date as the DOR. As such, there is no way the promotion order would have been published directly after the board convened. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-03902
_________________________________________________________________ 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 of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-00635
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00635 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The effective date on his current promotion order be backdated to 26 May 2010, the date the February 2010, majors list was signed. The package could not be processed because his 2009 and 2010 Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) were not signed until...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02191
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 1 Oct 10, he became eligible for ACP when he received his initial AGR tour orders. The applicant was initially ordered to extended active duty from 1 Oct 10 to 30 Sep 13. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00209
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00209 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code be changed to one that will allow him to re-enter the military. The Medical Consultant lauds the applicants desire to once again serve, and the support he has received from his parents, an employer, his youth pastor, and a...
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-2010-01507
On 31 July 2007, the commander notified the member that he was being discharged from the ANG under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, Substandard (Unsatisfactory) Performance. On 31 July 2007, the applicant was honorably discharged from the MI ANG because he failed his end-of-course examination for his CDC twice. ___________________________________________________________ _____ The following members of...