Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02503
Original file (BC-2011-02503.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02503 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Effective Date of Change of Strength Accountability (EDCSA) 
date be changed from 3 March 2011 to 2 March 2011 to preclude a 
break in service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His recruiter mistakenly verified his scroll date approval as 
3 March 2011. The actual scroll date approval was 2 March 2011 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits copies of his 
Request and Authorization for Separation; Application for Ready 
Reserve Assignment; Oath of Office; and a Personnel Data SURF. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the United States Air Force 
Reserve (USAFR) in the grade of captain (O-3). He was honorably 
discharged from the Regular Air Force effective 1 March 2011 to 
transfer to the USAFR. 

 

The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s 
military service record, are contained in the evaluation by the 
Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/A1K recommends denial. A1K states they do not have the 
latitude to change the applicant’s assignment effective date into 
the USAFR (EDCSA date) prior to his actual entry into the USAFR. 
His Oath of Office as an officer in the USAFR reflects a date of 
3 March 2011. As such, his EDCSA must reflect a date of 3 March 
2011 or later. 


 

The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 16 September 2011 for review and comments within 30 days 
(Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was timely filed. 

 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice to warrant relief. 
After a thorough review of the evidence presented, it appears the 
applicant’s appointment date was appropriately established in 
compliance with Secretary of Defense Directive. However, we note 
the applicant’s assertion that his recruiter erroneously 
identified the applicant’s appointment approval date as 2 March 
2011 when in fact, it was actually 3 March 2011. This error 
caused the applicant to have a break in service of one day which 
was at no fault of the applicant. Therefore, in an effort to 
offset any possibility of an injustice, we recommend the 
applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to reflect that he was not 
released from active duty, effective 1 March 2011, but was 
continued on active duty through 2 March 2011. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02503 in Executive Session on 15 March 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

  Panel Chair 

  Member 

  Member 

 


All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-
02503 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 11, with atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 30 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 11. 

 

 

 

 

  

 Panel Chair 

 

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00484

    Original file (BC-2011-00484.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00484 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His commissioning date and appointment as a second lieutenant (O- 1) in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) be changed from 10 December 2010 to 26 October 2010. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02444

    Original file (BC 2013 02444.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect he requested and received a reserve commission and transferred to the IRR when he separated from active duty. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ARPC/DPA recommends approval,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01632

    Original file (BC-2011-01632.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01632 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His commissioning date as a second lieutenant in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) be changed from 18 April 2011 to 18 February 2011, the day he graduated from Officer Training School (OTS). The Scroll was approved by SecDef on 18 April 2011,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02321

    Original file (BC-2011-02321.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02321 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of separation (DOS) from active duty be adjusted to reflect the day before his Reserve appointment date in order to prevent a break in service. The Secretary of Defense (SecDef) approved the applicant’s appointment as a USAFR officer on 6...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03045

    Original file (BC-2012-03045.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03045 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date entered Reserve service be changed from 1 May 2012 to 1 October 2011. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends the applicant's military records be corrected to reflect that he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03172

    Original file (BC-2011-03172.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Thus, as a matter of record, the applicant’s DIERF cannot be prior to the date that he accepted the Oath of Office, i.e., the member is not a Reserve officer until such time as the Oath of Office is executed. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04426

    Original file (BC-2012-04426.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    She separated from the Regular Air Force effective 27 June 2011 and was appointed an officer in the USAFR effective 19 July 2011 (date of SecDef approval). The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service record, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPA recommends approval. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01595

    Original file (BC-2012-01595.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01595 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of separation (DOS) from active duty in the Regular Air Force be adjusted to reflect the day before his appointment in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) in order to eliminate his break in service. DPT states the applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00925

    Original file (BC-2009-00925.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00925 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. When she inquired about her pay date, she was told it would be the date (19 Apr 00) she joined the Air Force. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03042

    Original file (BC-2010-03042.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s HYTD of 1 September 2010 (pay date of 30 August 1977 plus 33 years, first day of the following month) is in compliance with the USAFR HYT Program. 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. ...