RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04604 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect his date of commissioning was 
changed to 30 Sep 09, instead of 7 May 10. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Several administrative errors occurred during the process of his 
accession which resulted in the delay of his commissioning. It 
took 18 months for personnel to complete the process resulting in 
a significant loss of financial incentives. The initial cash 
incentives were his main motivation to apply for commissioning in 
the Air National Guard as a professional healthcare provider. 

 

On 9 Jan 09, he met with personnel at the base and received 
documents to fill out to begin the process of becoming 
commissioned. Sometime in Feb 09, he returned to the base and 
submitted the completed documents to start the process. On 
18 Feb 09, the State Air Surgeon signed off his medical records 
and it was his understanding that once this task was complete, 
his accession package should have been forwarded up the chain. 
In Aug 09, he learned that the incentives would be discontinued 
at the end of the fiscal year, 30 Sep 09. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was appointed in the grade of major (O-4) in the 
Ohio Air National Guard, effective 7 May 10. 

 

On 2 Oct 11, the applicant filed an Inspector General Personal 
and Fraud, Waste & Abuse Complaint regarding the numerous errors 
and timeliness in processing his accession. 

 


On 17 Jan 12, the Inspector General provided a response to the 
applicant’s complaint, indicating there was no assertion or 
evidence that the unit violated a standard with the processing of 
his accession; however, they did identify and address 
administrative issues connected to the processing of his 
accession. 

 

In accordance with the Deputy Secretary of Defense (SecDEF) 
Memorandum, dated 2 May 05, all military officer appointments 
under Title 10, United States Code, Section 12203, not previously 
approved by 30 Jun 05, shall be submitted to the SecDEF for 
approval. The Office of Defense General Council determined the 
appointment date is the date SecDEF approves the appointment or 
the date the oath was administered, whichever is later. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary (OPR) and is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1PO recommends granting the applicant’s request to change 
his Date of Appointment (DOA) in the Air National Guard from 
7 May 10 to 30 Sep 09; however, if the BCMR approves, his Total 
Years Service Date (TYSD); Total Federal Commissioned Service 
Date (TFCSD); Date of Rank (DOR) as a major; and his Promotion 
Effective Date (PED) will all need to be corrected. 

 

Additionally, the applicant met the CY12 ANG Line and Nonline 
Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board in April 2012 and was selected 
for promotion by this Board. Should the BCMR approve the 
correction of the applicant’s DOA to 30 Sep 09, the applicant 
would have met the CY11 Promotion Board which convened in April 
2011. If the applicant would have met this board and been 
selected for promotion, his DOR to Lieutenant Colonel would have 
been 11 Oct 11. Therefore, if the BCMR approves the correction 
of his Lieutenant Colonel promotion DOR and PED to 11 Oct 11, it 
will avoid the need for a Special Selection Board. If not 
approved, the applicant will have to meet a Special Selection 
Board to get his PED corrected. 

 

A complete copy of the NGB/A1PO 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 11 Jan 13, for review and comment 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 timely filed. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting 
corrective action. The applicant contends that delays in the 
appointment process that were outside of his control caused his 
appointment as an officer in the Air National Guard (ANG) to be 
delayed, thus precluding him from qualifying for certain health 
professions accession bonuses. While we note that NGB/A1PO is 
recommending relief be granted, this Board is without authority 
to correct the record as requested. In this respect, we note 
that officer appointments are carried out by virtue of the 
authority of the SecDEF as promulgated by the governing 
provisions of applicable statutes and Department of Defense (DoD) 
policy. As this Board can only effect the correction of a record 
on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF), and the 
SecAF does not have the authority to appoint commissioned 
officers, we cannot recommend the requested relief be granted. 
In view of the above, we considered correcting the applicant’s 
record to reflect that competent authority approved payment of 
the FY2008 health professions bonuses in FY2009 as an exception 
to policy; however, we have been advised that said bonuses are 
authorized and administered by the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense (OSD) and, as such, no Department of the Air Force 
official has the authority to grant such an exception to policy. 
Accordingly, this Board is also without authority to recommend 
such a remedy. Therefore, while the possibility exists that the 
delay in the applicant’s appointment could have been caused by 
circumstances outside of his control, there no basis for us to 
recommend granting the requested relief as doing so is outside 
the Board’s authority. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-04604 in Executive Session on 23 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 


 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-04604 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Sep 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PO, dated 20 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair