RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01379
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect that 16 days of leave were
restored to his leave balance.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
While he was on terminal leave, he was notified of his selection
for promotion to senior master sergeant (E-8). He accepted the
promotion and was approved for withdrawal of his retirement.
Between 8 Mar 12 and 23 Mar 12, he sent numerous emails and made
several phone calls attempting to receive guidance. On 23 Mar
12, he finally received an email notifying him of his
assignment. Due to the delay in receiving guidance from his
servicing Force Support Squadron, he spent 16 days of leave,
from 8 Mar 12 through 23 Mar 12, that should be restored.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants military personnel records reflect that he is
currently serving on active duty in the grade of senior master
sergeant (E-8).
On 8 Mar 12, while on terminal leave in Tampa, FL, the applicant
was informed that he had been selected for promotion to senior
master sergeant (E-8), accepted the promotion and withdrew his
application for retirement.
On 22 Mar 12, the applicant reenlisted in the Air Force for a
period of two years and one month.
On 5 Apr 12, the applicant was issued permanent change of
station (PCS) orders assigning him from Spangdahlem AB, Germany
and on 25 Apr 12, he reported to his gaining unit at Randolph
Air Force Base, Texas.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of
an error or an injustice. The applicants terminal leave was
carried out in accordance with AFI 36-3003, Military Leave
Program (AFGM 4), which indicates terminal leave is chargeable
leave taken in conjunction with retirement or separation from
active duty. The applicant signs a statement of understanding
that they will not return to duty after terminal leave begins
and is informed of the ramification that would result from
returning to duty once placed on terminal leave status. There
is insufficient documentation to support the applicants
request.
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 13 Jan 14 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 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 argues that because he was selected for promotion and
withdrew his retirement, that he should not be charged for the
terminal leave he used. However, after a thorough review of the
evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, we
are not convinced that he is the victim of an error or
injustice. While the applicant was allowed to return to active
duty once it became clear that he was selected for promotion,
this fact, in and of itself, does not constitute an error on the
part of the Air Force, nor, in our view, does it cause the
applicant to be the victim of an injustice. Ultimately, the
applicant was in a leave status and appropriately charged leave;
but he has presented no evidence whatsoever that would cause us
to believe he is 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 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-2013-01379 in Executive Session on 13 Feb 14, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Mar 13.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 16 Nov 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 13.
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03471
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03471 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His 17 days of lost leave be restored, or as an alternative, he be allowed to sell back 15 days of leave. AFI 36-3003, Military Leave Program, explains Special Leave Accrual (SLA) allows members who are faced with circumstances that prohibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01252
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The evidence used by his commander for the Article 15 was inadmissible because the evidence was obtained as a result of an illegal search. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial and states, in part, that Article 15 punishment should be set aside only when the evidence presented in the application demonstrates a material...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03428
He requested a new retirement date of 1 Jul 03. First, he states that the cause of the “glitch” is blamed on his retirement date cancellation not making it through the system in time, when the fact is, regardless of whether he cancelled his retirement date, he was under Stop Loss and was eligible to compete for promotion, so his retirement flowing through the system should not have mattered. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 04469
On 14 Feb 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) directed that the applicants pertinent AFFMS records be updated to reflect the FAs dated 14 Dec 10, 2 Sep 11, and 1 Dec 11 be removed. The applicant provided medical documentation supporting his contention that his condition precluded him from attaining passing scores on the contested FAs and also provided two substitute reports signed by all of the original evaluators with memorandums supporting his request to substitute the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04554
He be allowed to test for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) and be considered for promotion by the SMSgt promotion board during cycle 13E8. The reason the these documents did not go before the promotion board is because their close out dates did not meet the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) for any previous cycle; the PECD for cycle 12E8 was 30 Sep 11; therefore, the first time these documents would have been considered by a promotion board was cycle 13E8 that...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00768
If he had known he would be losing six days of leave then he would have made adjustments to his PTDY and terminal leave dates. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant did not use six days of his annual/ordinary leave...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05820
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, and, copies of his Article 15; response to the Article 15; Area Defense Counsels response to the Article 15; request for suspension of nonjudical punishment; witness statements; referral EPR; career EPRs; awards, decorations, and recognitions; and character references. The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIM agrees with AFLOA/JAJMs recommendation to deny the relief sought to set aside the nonjudicial...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00191
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00191 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His sit-up component score on his 4 Nov 12 Fitness Assessment (FA) be changed from 25 to 45, which will give him a passing score in the Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS). Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIM, dated 6 Nov 13. Exhibit D. Letter,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05978
A copy of the complete Report of Investigation is at Exhibit B. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C, D, E, and F. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends the UIF and LOA not be removed from the applicants records. The applicants LOA and UIF are completely supported by the evidence.