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 applicants 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
applicants assignment selection followed all internal procedures
and resulted in a good assignment match. The approved retirement
based on the applicants 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
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03677
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
DPAPP notes that after a review of the applicants 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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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 applicants 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
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
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
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIMC recommends denial of the applicants 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
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
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 Forces failure to timely...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03145
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...