RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00796
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document Armed Forces of
the United States, dated 8 Oct 10, be changed to reflect 2 years,
11 months, and 5 days, rather than 6 years.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He transferred to the Florida Air National Guard (FL ANG) from
the Connecticut Air National Guard (CT ANG) with a service
obligation. Due to an administrative oversight, the new unit
enlisted him for 6 years instead of completing his contract. He
must now fulfill the service obligation incurred and participate
satisfactorily under his new agreement
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
8 Oct 10 and 13 Sep 07 enlistment contracts.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 13 Sep 07, the applicant enlisted in the CT ANG for a period
of 6 years.
The applicant transferred to the FL ANG, and on 8 Oct 10, he
signed/executed a DD Form 4 with the FL ANG effective on that
date for a term of 6 years.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PS recommends denial as recommended to them by the Subject
Matter Expert (SME), NGB/A1POE. According to the advisory
prepared by the SME, the applicant did not provide sufficient
evidence to make a determination on his case. The applicant
provides no reason why he believes this was an administrative
oversight and does not include any statements from the
recruiting staff or Force Support Squadron (FSS) stating that
they believe there was an error. Without any actual reasoning
the SME cannot determine that he had not in fact requested the 6
year enlistment.
The complete A1PS evaluation, with attachment is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 13 May 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to
the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a
response has not been received (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 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 that 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 Docket Number
BC-2011-00796 in Executive Session on 1 Dec 11, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number
BC-2011-00796 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jan 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 22 Apr 11, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 11.
Panel Chair
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 | CY2009 | BC-2008-04301
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He met the eligibility requirements to participate in the ANG FY08 ACP program as he was on one continuous active duty order for the entire FY performing the duties of an ANG pilot during that time frame. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-03978
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. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
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 | 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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02882
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02882 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her active duty performed 15 April 2002 through 11 July 2002, in support of OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE, be added to her National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation/Discharge and Record of Service; her...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03725
However, no eligible RPA pilot will be able to take advantage of this due to the way one year orders are allocated and the delay in the release of the FY11 guidance. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his Air National Guard (ANG) FY11 ACP Program Announcement and Implementation Policy, aeronautical order, FY11 ACP Agreement Statement of Understanding (SOU), and other documents in support of his application. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02768
After being successful in reenlisting in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR), he subsequently transferred back to his former unit with sufficient retainability for promotion; however, he was still not recommended for promotion. 2) His unit commander took him back on the basis that he would deploy and not be at the unit. However, since he was a member of the Air Force Reserve, the squadron commander of the unit he was assigned to (not the TDY commander) could have recommended him...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04132
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends denial, stating, in part, based on information from the subject matter expert (SME), the applicant was discharged in accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members, para 3.16., Entry Level Performance and Conduct, not a medical...
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...