RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00598
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His pay grade be changed from O1 (second lieutenant) to O1-E.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The DOD Financial Management Regulation states those in the
grades of O-1 to O-3 with more than 1,460 points as a warrant
officer and/or enlisted member should receive credit for their
service.
His Point Credit Accounting and Reporting Summary (PCARS) as of
24 Aug 13 reflects he had 1,436 points for retirement with over
30 days of active duty service. Additional points exist after
24 Aug 13 for O1-E.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a member of the Air National Guard (ANG) and is
currently serving in the grade of second lieutenant.
Special Order P-003538 dated 7 Jan 14, reflects he was honorably
discharged from the New Jersey ANG effective 12 Dec 13 in the
grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6) for the purpose of
appointment in the ANG as a commissioned officer.
Per AF Form 133, Oath of Office (Military Personnel), dated
13 Dec 13, he was commissioned in the Reserve of the Air Force
in the grade of second lieutenant.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PS recommends denial. The applicant has not exhausted all
remedies prior to petitioning the AFBCMR for relief. AFI 36-
2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, states
the request will be denied if the applicant has not exhausted
all available and effective remedies. The applicant should
contact his local Force Support Squadron (FSS) and request
assistance to update his record. In Accordance With (IAW) DOD
7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation, Volume 7A, Chapter
1, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) should
assess the applicants eligibility for the pay adjustment by
initiating a Case Management System (CMS) with proof of
participation. DFAS will confirm eligibility with ARPC and upon
confirmation of participation will adjust the applicants pay.
A complete copy of the A1PS 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 7 Apr 15 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 error or injustice. In this
respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level
of appeal within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must
first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief
provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief
before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force
Instruction. The Air Force office of primary responsibility has
reviewed this application and indicated there is an available
avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first
pursued. In view of this, the Board finds this application is
not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a
subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted.
Therefore, in view of the above, The Board finds no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that he has not exhausted all
available avenues of administrative relief prior to submitting
his application to the AFBCMR; and the application will only be
reconsidered upon exhausting all subordinate avenues of
administrative relief.
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-00598 in Executive Session on 13 May 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, NGB/A1PS, dated 7 Apr 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Apr 15.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01566
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01566 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His make-up drill points be transferred to show a good year from Jan 13 to Jan 14. Furthermore, since there was no error or injustice, it would not be appropriate for the AFBCMR to direct the unit to provide the member with the necessary points to show a good year. The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00028
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The inclusive dates of 10 Dec 07 through 29 Jun 11 are incorrect as there are officer performance reports (OPR) accomplished for 2010, 2011, and 2012, which are on file in her records. 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: NGB/A1PS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01410
Upon returning from his AD deployment in 2012 he was denied Medical Continuation (MEDCON) orders and pay by his medical group, and he should have been considered for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). On 12 Dec 12, the Connecticut IG rendered a determination that the applicants contested injury was incurred while serving on AD, and, as he was found fit for duty, no MEDCON orders were warranted. A complete copy of the NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02029
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1POP does not make a recommendation and defers to the Board to make a determination regarding the applicant’s date of rank. However, they point out that a state has the authority to have a policy for promotion of their officers who would become overgrade upon promotion. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we find the evidence of record insufficient to...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02768
After being successful in reenlisting in the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR), he subsequently transferred back to his former unit with sufficient retainability for promotion; however, he was still not recommended for promotion. 2) His unit commander took him back on the basis that he would deploy and not be at the unit. However, since he was a member of the Air Force Reserve, the squadron commander of the unit he was assigned to (not the TDY commander) could have recommended him...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03031
JA states that based on the facts presented in the NGB opinions, JA finds their responses to be legally sufficient and concurs with the recommendations to deny the applicant's requests for corrective action related to ACP payments, Board# V0611A, AGR separation from ANG Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) consideration, and TERA. Counsels complete response is at Exhibit N. _______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04178
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends denial. However, should after exhausting his administrative avenue of relief, the applicant feel he is still a victim of an error or injustice, the applicant may resubmit his application to the Board for consideration. The following documentary evidence was...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03619
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. However, evidence has been presented that her promotion package was not submitted in a timely manner in order for her to be considered by the same board as the other officers whose promotions were held up due to an administrative situation, which resulted in a later promotion effective date through no fault of their own. While the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03802
The Assistant Adjutant Generals policy, at the time of his transfer to the Retired Reserve section, in April 1993, considered only field grade officers and above and senior enlisted members for award of the MSM. The complete ANG/A1PS evaluation is at exhibit C. NGB/A1P states they concur with the NGB/A1PS advisory and recommend relief not be granted based on the Air Force policy. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04925
In addition, prior to his submission to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR); DFAS must establish if there is a debt, notify him of the debt, and provide the course of actions available to him to resolve the issue. 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: ARPC/DPA recommends that once a debt has been...