Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02097
Original file (BC-2010-02097.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2010-02097 

COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His 7-day option be removed and he be allowed to request a 
retirement date of 1 June 2011. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was erroneously selected for reassignment with an Assignment 
Availability Code (AAC) of “37” (pending medical evaluation 
board) which identified him as non-worldwide qualified for a PCS 
assignment. If he had not been selected for reassignment, he 
would not have had to select a 7-day option to retire. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
Notification of Selection for Reassignment. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who was 
progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7). 

 

According to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Narrative Summary, 
dated 11 August 2009, the applicant was referred to a Physical 
Evaluation Board (PEB) for Obstructive Sleep Apnea. On 19 August 
2009, AFPC/DPMM (Medical Standards Branch) indicated the 
applicant had been found fit and returned to duty with an 
Assignment Limitation Code “C” and that all restrictions and 
holds imposed by the MEB/PEB process were removed on that date. 

 

On 7 April 2010, the applicant was notified that he was selected 
for an assignment. On 16 April 2010, the applicant indicated he 
elected to retire. 

 

The applicant was honorably released from active duty effective 
31 October 2010 and retired effective 1 November 2010. He served 
20 years, 11 months, and 29 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 


 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPAA2 recommends denial. DPAA2 states that on 6 April 2010, 
the applicant was identified as the most eligible non-volunteer 
based on his Date Arrived Station (DAS) of 8 June 2000. He did 
have an AAC of “37” with an expiration date of June 2010. Their 
office coordinated with the Medical Standards Branch (standard 
operating procedure) to determine whether or not the MEB would 
return the applicant to duty. It was indicated that there was a 
high probability the applicant would be cleared to remain on 
active duty. On 7 April 2010, AFPC/DPMM sent a Record in Lieu Of 
(RILO) request to have the AAC “37” removed. 

 

DPAA2 indicates that based on the information collected, the 
applicant’s assignment selection followed all internal procedures 
and resulted in a good assignment match. The approved retirement 
based on the applicant’s 7-day option should remain in place. 

 

The complete DPAA2 evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 30 July 2010 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit 
D). 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 an error or an 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 the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
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-2010-02097 in Executive Session on 23 February 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2010-02097: 

 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 May 10, w/atch. 

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAA2, dated 30 Jun 10. 

Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 10. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03677

    Original file (BC-2005-03677.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Personnel Data System (PDS) reflects the applicant failed to get retainability for PCS or TDY by the remarks code 80 which reflects the servicemember failed to get retainability for PCS or TDY. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 April 2006, for review and response. He was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00825

    Original file (BC 2014 00825.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPAPP notes that after a review of the applicant’s military records, they could not determine at any time was he placed on an AAC code 17. The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit G. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes that after reviewing the response from JA, he was not eligible to meet the CY10 RIF Board. In addition, while we cannot determine with any certainty, it appears the applicant may have received an earlier version of the PSDM for the CY10 RIF Board,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03938

    Original file (BC-2010-03938.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was a member of the Air Force Reserve and was on active duty orders from 13 Oct 09 to 9 Jun 10. The supporting Reserve Medical Unit (RMU) was not notified of this until Apr 10; therefore, no LOD determination or profile action was taken prior her being placed on long term orders. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04842

    Original file (BC-2012-04842.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 16 March 2011, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for failing the Air Force fitness standards for the third time. He failed the waist measurement only FA, which constituted an unsatisfactory assessment On 28 April 2011, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for failure to meet minimum fitness standards. Specifically, the applicant failed the Air force fitness test four times within a 24-month period.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00285

    Original file (BC-2012-00285.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    If all the facts and unfitting disabling conditions were justly considered, he would have been medically retired at 100 percent. The IPEB noted “you have been unable to perform Security Forces duties since 2007 due to limitations resulting from your continued bilateral knee pain.” On 14 Apr 09, the applicant non-concurred with the findings and recommended disposition of the IPEB and requested a formal 2 hearing with counsel. Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1332.38, Physical...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02097

    Original file (BC-2011-02097.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02097 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reentry (RE) code of 2C which denotes “Involuntarily separated with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of service” and separation program designator (SPD) codes be changed so that she can serve again in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00875

    Original file (BC-2012-00875.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the LOR from her records. DPSOO states that the applicant was considered by the CY2011B (30 June 2011) and CY2012B (30 June 2012) Captains Promotion Process with a DNP recommendation. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01126

    Original file (BC-2008-01126.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB determined the applicant would be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a disability rating of 40 percent. AFPC/DPSD’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that Title 37 reflects time spent on the TDRL could be counted as creditable service. Regarding his argument that the DoD disability instruction authorizes credit towards...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04674

    Original file (BC 2013 04674.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant underwent an MEB on 4 Feb 97, but was returned to duty by the IPEB in Apr 97. Under these circumstances, if a service member undergoes an MEB [specifically if the MEB narrative summary is dictated] within the 12 months of an approved retirement or retention control point, the service member enters a presumptive period during which he is presumed fit to return to duty. While the applicant argues that he is the victim of an injustice due to the Air Force’s failure to timely...

  • 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...