Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01701
Original file (BC-2010-01701.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01701

INDEX CODE: 136.01

XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE

HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her mandatory separation date (MSD) be extended for nine months to allow her MSD waiver request to be processed.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her Feb 10 MSD extension request was delayed in coordination through her chain of command.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant served in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5), effective and with a date of rank of 1 Apr 05.

On 1 Apr 10, the applicant’s commander initiated a request to retain her in active status beyond her 1 Jul 10 MSD to permit her participation in Operation PACIFIC ANGEL, a joint and combined humanitarian assistance operation in the Pacific Area of Operations. The Commander, Air Force Reserve Command concurred and forwarded the request to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) on 22 Jun 10. On 29 Jun 10, SAFPC approved the applicant’s retention in active status until 1 Oct 10.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/SG2 recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant’s initial request for an extension of her MSD was received and processed in a timely manner. As a result, her MSD was extended to 1 Oct 10.

A complete copy of the AFRC/SG2 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 27 Aug 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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 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 for us to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-01701 in Executive Session on 4 Nov 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair

Ms. XXXXXXXXXX, Member

Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 10.

Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.

Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/SG2, dated 19 Aug 10.

Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 10.

XXXXXXXXXX

Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01342

    Original file (BC-2012-01342.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01342 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be credited with retirement points based on his mandatory separation date (MSD) of 31 Jan 13. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement; a copy of his MSD waiver package, and the disapproval document from Secretary...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02836

    Original file (BC 2013 02836.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02836 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The applicant requested an extension to her MSD to allow her the opportunity to complete 20 years of satisfactory service for retirement. In this respect, we note the applicant timely requested an extension of her 31 Dec 12 MSD in Mar 12;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2009-03038

    Original file (BC-2009-03038.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her original MSD extension request and correspondence related to the matter under review. On 15 Dec 08, NGB/A1POE recommended approval; however, the ANG Chief of Chaplains (NGB/HC) subsequently recommended denial, indicating the applicant’s retention was not in the best interests of the Air Force. However, inasmuch as the Board lacks the authority to reinstate applicants into the ANG, we believe the proper and fitting relief in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05117

    Original file (BC 2013 05117.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, there was the sense at the time that allowing the applicant to remain in the AFRC/SG2 position would block other 41As from career progression into that position. A complete copy of the AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. SAF/MRBP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for an MSD extension and/or reinstatement, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02618

    Original file (BC-2011-02618.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the Chief of Air Force Reserve (AF/RE) and Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) unjustly denied an extension to her mandatory separation date (MSD) in order to deprive her of an active duty (AD) retirement. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of multiple Military Personnel Appropriation (MPA) man-day tour waivers from 2002 to 2009 with supporting documentation; signed Statements of Understanding: Waiver of Active Duty Sanctuary; and her request...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00488

    Original file (BC-2010-00488.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In accordance with paragraph 6.6.3.2 of DoD Instruction 1241.2, Reserve Component Incapacitation System Management, a Reserve component member on active duty under a call or order to active duty of 31 or more days who incurs or aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line of duty shall, with the member's consent, be continued on active duty until the member is determined to be fit for duty or separated or retired as a result of a Disability Evaluation System (DES) determination. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01701

    Original file (BC 2014 01701.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01701 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. While the applicant contends his DNIF status during an extend period of time unjustly precluded him from attaining 50 points for his year ending 29 Nov 11, the Board believes it is the responsibility of each individual service member to carefully track their personal service and points, and to work with his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03908

    Original file (BC-2008-03908.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    His Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) of 31 October 2008 be extended six months to allow adequate time to process a request for an MSD extension through Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) channels to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a final determination. In October 2007, the applicant was notified by certified letter of the requirements for requesting an MSD extension. The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05322

    Original file (BC 2012 05322.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05322 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that on 31 Jul 07, he was released from active duty and retired in accordance with the provisions of 10 USC Section 1251, rather than being transferred to the Air Force Reserve. Therefore, the applicant submitted a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 01500

    Original file (BC 2011 01500.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was approved for Stop Loss payments from Apr 02 to 1 Oct 02 (his promotion date). On the date he was promoted, his AFSC was still on Stop Loss and he could not retire. 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...