RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02205
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Thirty days of lost leave be reinstated.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not given the opportunity to take an adequate amount of
leave due to her attendance at a commissioning program and
college requirements.
In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of the
Special Orders, dated 23 Jul 2010, for the Commissioned Officer
Training (COTS) Program, and copies of recent Leave and Earning
Statements (LES).
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicants master personnel records, are described in
the letter prepared by the Air Force Office of responsibility,
which is included at Exhibit C. Therefore, there is no need to
recite these facts in this record of proceedings.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. The applicant carried forward 75.0 days
of leave at the beginning of fiscal year (FY) 10. During FY10,
she earned 25 days of leave and used 29 days of leave. Although
the applicant lost 30 days leave at the end of FY10, AFI 36-
3003, Military Leave Program, paragraph 10.9.7., requires the
applicant to clearly establish that an error or injustice by the
Air Force caused the members lost leave. On 28 Jun 11,
AFPC/DPSIM requested additional documentation from the member
that shows the Air Force caused the loss of leave. The
applicant did not submit the requested documentation.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM 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 3 Dec 2011 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 applicants 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
(OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Other than her own assertions, she has provided no evidence to
indicate that an error on the part of the Air Force caused her
to lose her leave. 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 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-2010-02205 in Executive Session on 9 Feb 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chief
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR was
Docket Number BC-2010-02205 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 31 Oct 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Dec 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04458
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Dec 11 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04876
Then, she was on convalescent leave and in rehabilitation until 17 Sep 11, and not permitted to leave the local area due to her medical condition. The applicant lost 16 days of leave because her extensive convalescent leave and rehabilitation precluded her from taking ordinary leave. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 01775
According to the information provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility the applicant carried forward 63.5 days of leave at the beginning of FY 2010. 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. Exhibit C....
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01730
She was profiled [sic] from taking leave while undergoing the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) processes. DPSIM states that IAW AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, a members application must clearly establish that an error or injustice by the Air Force caused the members lost leave. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00465
In Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) and FY08, she requested SLA and was approved to carryover 120 days of leave. However, she came to understand that her SLA request in FY09 was lost when she changed jobs and was informed in Oct 09 that she had to either sell back or lose 10 days of leave. The application was timely filed.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03925
This extension was completed, signed, and approved in Mar 2009; however, the local personnel office said they could not update the system until 1 Dec 2009, which was the first day of her extension. In this regard, we note that DPSIM initially recommended disapproval of the applicants request; however, after reviewing the extension paperwork, DPSIM now recommends 17.5 days of leave be restored to her leave account and we agree. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05852
Recommend the Board change the applicants DAS to SJAFB to reflect 28 May 13 since this is the day the Join Spouse assignment was approved by the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) and also this is the day the applicant was officially assigned to SJAFB. AFMAN 65-116V1, Defense Joint Military Pay System Active Component (DJMS-AC) FSO Procedures, paragraph 41.2.3.1.2.2. states If the member takes leave in the local area of the new PDS (Permanent Duty Station) without contacting the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00392
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00821
Scheduling leave prevents loss of leave at fiscal year (FY)-end balancing, retirement, or separation from active duty. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends the 16 lost days were due to being penalized as reprisal for speaking out against her commander at the time; he allegedly committed sexual assault against her. We took notice of the applicants complete submission, to include her rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04344
According to her MPF, members separated under the FY10/11 FMP received between $20,000 and $22,000 in separation pay. The applicant contends that she should have been provided separation pay as she was separated under the provisionsof the FY10/11 Force Management Program (FY10/11FMP); however, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, we are not convinced she was entitled toseparation pay. ...