RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02919
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His voluntary separation be changed to a retirement.
2. He receive 16 years and 8 months service credit for retirement.
3. He receive retroactive pay and entitlements from 30 Apr 88 to
present.
4. He receive all entitlements associated with retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes he was the victim of religious discrimination and
conspiracy of silence by his supervisors and superiors. He believes
his supervisors and superiors did not give his request for separation
a creditable evaluation; they just rubber stamped their approval on
his request to be discharged. His supervisors and superiors did not
provide or offer any counseling regarding his options or opportunities
for retention, cross training, etc.
In support of his appeal, applicant submits two personal statements,
a photograph and copies of documents extracted from his military
personnel records.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 16 Aug 71, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the
Regular Air Force. He was progressively promoted to the grade of
technical sergeant having assumed the grade effective and with a date
of rank of 1 Oct 81. On 23 Dec 87, the applicant submitted a request
for separation. The request was approved and he was voluntarily
separated on 30 Apr 88, with an honorable discharge for the
convenience of the government, miscellaneous reasons.
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:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR notes the application is not
timely filed, having been submitted by the applicant 25 years after
his discharge. The applicant’s request for discharge was voluntary
and the Air Force discharged him as requested. There was no error or
injustice surrounding his voluntary request for discharge and the AF
granting the request.
DPSOR further notes that in order for an enlisted member to be
eligible for retirement they must have no less than 20 years Total
Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS). His TAFMS date is 16 Aug 71.
The applicant is not eligible for retirement because at the time of
his discharge he had 16 years, 8 months and 16 days TAFMS.
By the time Congress enacted Temporary Early Retirement Authorization
(TERA) and the SecAF implemented it to allow enlisted members to
retire with more than 15 but less than 20 years TAFMS beginning on 1
May 95, the applicant had already been discharged and it was not made
retroactive to any discharges or separations prior to its 23 Oct 92
enactment.
The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant comments that he is allowed to submit a case within
three years after the discovery date which was April 2010, and the
letter from SAF/MRBR dated 12 Aug 10, indicates his case was accepted.
He takes exception that he was referred to as an applicant rather than
an Air Force member and believes this impacted his separation request.
He disagrees that his commander did not have a requirement to discuss
other options with him. He further notes that incorrectly
categorizing his status for his request, was a keeping of silence, and
perceiving his request to be “an objection of some kind to military
service”, resulting in conspiracy and discrimination.
The Air Force evaluation answered the question of retirement, but the
basis of his case is unfair and unequal treatment. He believes his
request should be approved to correct an injustice. His rights should
be restored and he receive suitable compensation for the injustice.
The complete response by the applicant is at Exhibit E.
The applicant requested verification of receipt of his rebuttal
response and status of his application (Exhibit F). On 30 Dec 10, the
Board staff informed the applicant that his rebuttal response has been
received and that his request would be processed and receive full and
fair consideration (Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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, to include his rebuttal response, in
judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence
of an error or injustice. We found no evidence to substantiate his
allegations of discrimination or conspiracy of silence against him by
his chain of command. There is no evidence that his voluntary request
for discharge was not processed in accordance with the governing
instruction. Therefore, we find no basis to favorably consider 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-
2010-02919 in Executive Session on 8 Feb 11, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Sep 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Nov 10.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Dec 10.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Dec 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2004-00487-2
Applicant’s enlistment date was 5 Dec 01 and his date of separation (DOS) was 4 Dec 03. Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit K. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After a careful reconsideration of the applicant's request and his most recent submission, we do not find it sufficiently compelling to warrant a revision of the Board’s prior decision in this case. Exhibit K. Letter, Counsel, dated 23 Nov 08.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02124
On 31 Aug 13, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired, effective 1 Sep 13, with an SPD code of "RBC" (Voluntary Retirement, Maximum Service or Time in Grade) and was credited with 20 years and 20 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05035
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05035 ANTHONY B. CACHAPERO COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that on 31 Dec 06, he was released from active duty and retired, rather than discharged. The applicants active duty service does not meet the 20 years required to qualify for retirement. A representative from the AFPC Service Dates Verification office...
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-2011-04570
On 28 Apr 1981, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserves. JA states per the Air Force Records Information Management System, Disenrollment from Officer Candidate-Type Training records are destroyed after three years. The final disenrollment decision, made by HQ AFROTC, would have considered any response provided the applicant.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03518
To qualify for this incentive, a member must have served on active duty for more than 6 but less than 20 years and transfer to a Reserve component, as well as meet criteria specified by the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) according to the needs of the Air Force. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00067
He receive constructive service credit (CSC) under the Public and Community Service (PACS) program for his teaching. On 1 Jul 95, the applicant retired under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) program, after serving 16 years, 11 months, and 4 days of total active service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03474
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of her request to upgrade her discharge. The applicant was, however, punished not by her immediate supervisor based on his personal evaluation of her, but by her squadron commander for the repeated failure to report for duty on time. With respect to her request that her rank be restored to SrA, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05807
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Section 4464 of the Fiscal Year 1993 National Defense Authorization Act allowed eligible members retired under TERA to perform public and community...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05807
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Section 4464 of the Fiscal Year 1993 National Defense Authorization Act allowed eligible members retired under TERA to perform public and community...