Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03921
Original file (BC-2012-03921.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03921 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, reflect Regional Equipment Operator Training School. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He attended the Regional Equipment Operators Training School and 
was licensed in five pieces of heavy equipment. He also attended 
supervisor training classes which are also missing from his 
records. 

 

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Illinois Air National Guard on 
16 May 1985. 

 

On 15 May 1991, the applicant was honorably discharged in the 
grade of sergeant under the provisions of ANGR 39-10, Expiration 
Term of Service. He served 6 years of total service for pay. 

 

On 19 October 2012, AFPC/DPSIT advised the applicant to provide 
additional documentation or evidence showing completion of his 
formal training at Regional Equipment Operators Training School 
to include the course length and graduation date - within 
30 days. Any official certificate or source document showing 
these requirements would suffice. As of this date, no response 
has been received by this office. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial. DPSIT states no documents were 
included with the applicant’s package to support the corrective 
action requested. No documentation reviewed in the applicant’s 


records state completion of Regional Equipment Operator Training 
School. 

 

The DPSIT complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 21 January 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days 
(Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. The 
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with 
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and adopt their 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-03921 in Executive Session on 26 March 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03921 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 August 2012, w/atch. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 14 January 2013, 

 w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 January 2013. 

 

 

 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04281

    Original file (BC 2012 04281.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPAPPO states IAW DoDI 1300.19, DoD Joint Officer Management Program, in order to be appointed a Level II Joint Qualified Officer the officer must accrue 18 joint qualification points or have been awarded full joint duty credit and successfully completed JPME I. A further check of the Joint Officer Management Information System (JMIS) and Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) verify this fact. The DPSID complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSIM recommends granting relief sought by...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05563

    Original file (BC-2012-05563.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Failure to submit the required documentation or obtain retainability in a timely manner would result in a disapproval of an application for transferability. On 7 April 2010, the applicant was sent another email stating that his TEB had expired because he did not get the required retainability. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 21 December 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02666

    Original file (BC-2012-02666.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02666 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be amended as follows: 1. Per applicable Department of Defense and Air Force Instructions, participation in contingency operations, but not geographic locations, are allowed to be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00075

    Original file (BC-2012-00075.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIT recommends denial, indicating the applicant did not provide documentation to validate that he attended Ammunition School, although his WD AGO Form 53-54 did say he attended Ordnance School in Lansing Michigan...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03013

    Original file (BC-2011-03013.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Item 41 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 labeled; Service Schools Attended reflects “None.” On 23 September 2011 AFPC/DPSIT requested the applicant provide additional documentation or evidence to show completion of the courses. The complete AFPC/DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He did not have copies of records of the schools he attended. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05307

    Original file (BC 2013 05307.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05307 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to reflect that he was awarded a 7-skill level in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 2A5X1 (Aircraft Maintenance). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. In this respect, we note this Board is the highest level of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03582

    Original file (BC-2012-03582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Any member of the Armed Forces, active duty, or Selected Reserve, officer or enlisted, on or after 1 August 2009, who is eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, had at least 6 years of service on the date of election may transfer unused Post-9/11 benefits to their dependents. The facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the evidence of record; most notably, that the applicant was sent a notice to specify the number of months he wished to transfer to each dependent...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03010

    Original file (BC-2012-03010.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03010 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be able to transfer his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to his children. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The complete DPSIT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03185

    Original file (BC 2013 03185 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Upon completion of Basic Training he completed B-47 Bomber training after approximately six months. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01856

    Original file (BC-2012-01856.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s military service records, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice....