RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01278
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He receive pay and points for two Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs)
he performed 4 5 May 13 and 3 4 Aug 13 during Fiscal Year
2013 (FY13).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He performed UTAs during FY13; however, he was not paid for this
period due to an administratively deficient assignment process.
He had a pending assignment; however, because of the deficiency in
the process he did not receive notification of the reassignment
and reported to his current unit as normal. The system was down
that drill weekend so he signed in manually. He was informed that
he would be paid for the May UTA even though he had transferred to
a different unit.
Due to the mishandling of his reenlistment paperwork, he missed a
UTA and had to transfer back to his previous unit. As a result,
he was unjustly denied participation during the period 6 May
2 Aug 13.
He complied with the instructions from his Military Personnel
Section (MPS); however, because of system problems he was not paid
for the Aug 13 UTA.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 5 Jun 11, the applicant reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve for
a period of two years. On 3 Jul 13, the applicant extended for
2 months. On 3 Aug 13, the applicant reenlisted for a period of
two years.
The applicant was reassigned to the 920 OSS, effective 15 Oct 13.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/A1K concurs with the recommendation from AFRC/RMG to deny the
applicants request for pay and points for the period May Jul
13. Based on the documentation provided, RMG cannot substantiate
the applicants claim that he was unjustly denied participation
while assigned to the 6 OSS. His claim is to be paid for UTAs he
neither performed, nor would have been authorized to perform.
On 26 Apr 13, the applicants new unit of assignment, 6 OSS
forwarded him a welcome email to the address listed on his resume.
He was aware of the 26 Apr 13 effective date and that further
participation with his old unit should cease.
Furthermore, 6 OSS tried to contact the applicant on several
occasions between 10 May 17 Jun 13. His Expiration Term of
Service (ETS) was 4 Jun 13. Because of his non-responsiveness,
the 6 OSS elected to release him to return to his previous unit,
the 308 RQS, and his ETS was extended to 4 Aug 13 to allow for the
transfer.
The applicant was gained as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee
(IMA) on 26 Apr 13, which precluded him from participating at his
previous unit. Additionally, he transferred back to the 308 RQS
on 3 Aug 13; therefore, as the gaining unit, the 308 RQS, should
address any issues with compensation for drills performed in Aug
13.
The complete A1K evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 25 Aug 14 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. Regarding his request for pay and points during the 4 5 Aug
13 UTA. The applicant has not exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations. 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, we find 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, we find no basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this portion of the
application.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting pay
and points for the 3 4 May 13 UTA. We took notice of the
applicants 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 of 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-2014-01278 in Executive Session on 20 Jan 15 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Mar 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Electronic Mail, AFRC/A1K, dated 18 Aug 14,
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01466
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial, stating, in part, that the applicant's case file reflects that she was denied a participation waiver by the AFRC/SG staff for the period of time in question. While the form is not signed, the Air Force Reserve Surgeon General (AFRC/SG) notes that the applicant was submitted for a participation waiver; however, her request was denied. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01285
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01285 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be credited with an additional 23 days of active duty for pay and points. In addition, his LES reflects that he was paid and credited for the following training periods: 16 29 Jun 10 AD 30 Jun 11 Jul 10 IDT 1 15 Aug 10 AD On 9 Sep 10, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02836
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02836 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The applicant requested an extension to her MSD to allow her the opportunity to complete 20 years of satisfactory service for retirement. In this respect, we note the applicant timely requested an extension of her 31 Dec 12 MSD in Mar 12;...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03938
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was a member of the Air Force Reserve and was on active duty orders from 13 Oct 09 to 9 Jun 10. The supporting Reserve Medical Unit (RMU) was not notified of this until Apr 10; therefore, no LOD determination or profile action was taken prior her being placed on long term orders. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02423
Furthermore, if the applicant had been granted career status while being assigned to the CMSgt position it would have meant that she could have remained at Scott AFB until 2019 when she becomes eligible for an active duty retirement. We note the applicants assertion that she was selected for the superintendent position and subsequently promoted to the grade of CMSgt and due to her selection for the superintendent position her date of separation should be changed to 28 Feb 14. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01701
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01701 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. While the applicant contends his DNIF status during an extend period of time unjustly precluded him from attaining 50 points for his year ending 29 Nov 11, the Board believes it is the responsibility of each individual service member to carefully track their personal service and points, and to work with his...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03153
He be reinstated as an active member of the Air Force Reserve, effective 15 October 2010, with award of IDT points consistent with the average IDT points he earned between 1 March 2008 and 31 March 2010. In this respect, we believe the evidence provided makes it clear that a serious personality conflict existed between the applicant and certain members of his chain of command as validated by Inspector General (IG) complaints filed by his supervisory chain and the applicant himself, as well...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01227
It is unclear why no medical documentation was provided or why the case was not completed. In this case, he is not eligible for active duty orders. We note that the Air Force offices of primary responsibility state the applicants medical condition was not found to be in the line of duty; therefore no eligibility for active duty orders or pay exists.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01354
A1Y states that the applicant did not apply for the transfer of benefits via the Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) system and there is no application on file. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Division, AFRC/DPM, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant’s pay files reflected that he was paid for the UTAs of 22/23 Jan 94 and 26/27 Feb 94. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Mar 01. RICHARD A. PETERSON Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-03038 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of...