RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-03460 INDEX CODE: 108.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded a year of satisfactory federal service for retention/retirement (R/R) year 26 July 1994 through 25 June 1995. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not properly counseled by the Base Individual Mobilization Augmentee Administrator (BIMAA), his Unit Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) coordinator, or his immediate supervisor on the differences between fiscal year (FY), Retention/Retirement (R/R), year and calendar year training requirements. Subsequently, he earned a “bad year” for retirement. His points summary shows his participation has been above and beyond minimum requirements for the last 22 years of service except for the R/R year in question. As a young staff sergeant, the Air Force let him down by not providing him with this valuable information. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and copies of his 22 October 2007 ANG/USAFR point credit summary and a military personnel brief. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9) with a date of rank of 1 May 2005. The applicant is currently serving as a Security Forces Manager. During the R/R year 26 June 1994 through 25 June 1995, the applicant earned 12 active duty (AD) points, 18 inactive duty training (IDT) points, 0 correspondence course points, and 15 membership points, for a total of 45 total retirement points, and an unsatisfactory year of service. A total of 50 points is required for a satisfactory year of service. As of 25 Jun 2007, the closeout of his last R/R year, the applicant had 20 years and 6 months of satisfactory federal service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request. It is DPP’s opinion that there is no injustice in this case. DPP states that as a Reservist, the applicant had four satisfactory service years prior to receiving an unsatisfactory year. Four years is a sufficient amount of time for a member to discover the requirements necessary for successful completion in the IMA program and for obtaining a Reserve retirement year. The applicant’s BIMAA, program manager, or supervisor were not the only sources for information available. Normally, newly assigned IMAs were sent a “Welcome Package” which explained the requirements of the program and the minimum points required for a satisfactory service year. The DPP evaluation is at Exhibit B. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant finds the Air Force advisory opinion to be unsubstantiated. He did not receive a “Welcome Package” as the advisory author assumes. He became an IMA several weeks after leaving active duty and was subsequently activated for one and one half years in support of Operation DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM. He feels it is not the job of a naïve staff sergeant or technical sergeant to “discover” his or her own responsibilities. Both his immediate supervisor and IMA Unit coordinator were not properly trained and if they were he would have executed his days within the fiscal year. As a young staff sergeant, he trusted the system and the system failed him. If he was properly briefed, he is confident he would have met the ambiguous requirements. If the Board denies his request, he requests proof that he was properly briefed, led, and supervised, to include the documented training of his immediate supervisors and Unit IMA coordinator. The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We note the applicant’s contentions in reviewing this case; however, we find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of the applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. The applicant claims he was not properly briefed of his responsibilities for participation in the IMA program; however, he fails to provide any evidence to corroborate this assertion. Additionally, he contends that “it is not the job of a naive E-4 or E-5 to discover his or her responsibilities.” We take issue to this rationale as many Air Force staff sergeants and technical sergeants are put in positions of tremendous responsibility and can be supervisors of entire sections. We feel as a non-commissioned officer it was not only the applicant’s responsibility, but also his duty to find out what his training requirements were, especially since it was an issue of such importance that could affect his retirement benefit. The applicant also contends that he did not receive training requirements information because he was deployed. However, we note that he completed four years of satisfactory service towards retirement subsequent to his deployment and prior to his unsatisfactory year. Based on the aforementioned, we do not feel that a waiver of the applicant’s minimum training requirements is appropriate. Therefore, 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 that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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 the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 7 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair Ms. XXXXXXXXXXX, Member Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX, Member The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-03460: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Oct 07, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 21 Nov 07. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 07. Exhibit D. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 10 Dec 07, w/atch. XXXXXXXXXXXXX Panel Chair