RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01044 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His decorations be recorded in his records. 2. He be credited with points for his correspondence courses. 3. His receive credit for his New Jersey (NJ) Air National Guard (ANG) service. 4. His Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) premiums be stopped. 5. He be promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSgt). ______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His time in the NJ ANG has been disregarded. In support of his request, applicant provides documents extracted from his military personnel records and several other documents associated with his requests. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the United States Army (USA) and the United States Army Reserve (USAR) from 20 May 1954 to 30 April 1962; the NJ ANG from 21 October 1967 to 20 October 1980 and the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) from 12 March 1981 to 30 June 1990. He transferred to the retired Reserves on 1 July 1990. He completed 20 years, 11 months and 28 days of satisfactory service; 33 years, 9 months and 20 days of service for basic pay and accrued a total of 2,675 retirement points. The applicant has been receiving Reserve retired pay since his 60th birthday (21 January 1994). His retired pay is based on 2,680 retirement points and over 33 years of service for basic pay in the grade of technical sergeant. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1POE recommends denial of his request for additional decorations. A1POE states that after reviewing the information submitted they do not find evidence the decorations he received while serving as a member of NJ ANG were not properly recorded on his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation/Discharge and Record of Service. If the applicant has documentation that proves a correction to the NGB Form 22 is necessary, the NJ ANG can issue an NGB Form 22a to administratively correct the DD Form 214. The complete A1POE evaluation is at Exhibit B. NGB/A1PS concurs with the subject matter expert and recommends denial. The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. ARPC/DPP recommends denial. DPP states that in order to be credited with a year of satisfactory service, a member must participate and earn a minimum of 50 points in a specific one year period. The maximum points allowed per year are 365. There are no extra points credited for being an Air Reserve Technician (ART) and his points are correct. Since he did not identify which AF Form 526 needs to be updated, DPP reviewed his records and determined he has been properly credited with service and retirement points so there is nothing to correct on any of his AF Forms 526. His courses were properly credited, the confusion may be with some of the training courses he completed. He submitted copies of certificates showing completion of some career development courses (CDCs). The CDCs are required training; however, they are not Extension Course Institute (ECI) courses and he is not authorized retirement points upon completion. DPP has had numerous conversations with him regarding his retirement related issues, they have also responded to his concerns by letter. He does not understand how points and service are credited. DPP has asked for documentation verifying his claims; however, he continues to provide copies of documents he has already submitted. RCSBP premiums are paid out of retired pay; the earliest a Reserve retirement could meet the requirements for paid-up SBP would be age 90. He meets the minimum age requirements but not the requirement of having paid 360 SBP premium payments; therefore, he is not eligible to have the premiums stopped at this time. The complete DPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. ARPC/DPB recommends denial of his request for promotion to MSgt. DPB states the applicant held a higher graded billet, had the required seven skill level in his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) and had more than 24 months time in grade (TIG) and 8 years satisfactory service for retirement. However, he did not meet the requirements of satisfactory participation (12 active- duty training days and 24 inactive duty training periods) or received a recommendation for promotion from his supervisor. He only achieved 10 inactive training points; 4 in December 1987 and 6 in February 1988. This resulted in an unsatisfactory year for retirement purposes for the retirement year ending 11 March 1988. With such an inadequate amount of participation, his supervisor would have had difficulty making a recommendation for promotion. Promotion is not a reward for long and faithful service, rather it is advancement to a higher grade based on past performance and future potential. He did not meet the training requirements for the supervisory recommendation for promotion. His very low participation rate did not express future potential as outlined in the regulation. The complete DPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and provided copies of documents associated with the events cited in his appeal. The applicant’s review, in its entirety, is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ 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. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence that his decorations were not properly recorded on his NGB Form 22, or do we find evidence showing that his records should be corrected to show he was promoted to any grade higher than that currently reflected. The available evidence of record does not support a finding that he was not properly credited with all his service and or retirement points. With respect to his request to have his RCSBP premiums stopped, as previously stated by the Air Force OPR, he has not met the requirement of having paid 360 SBP premium payments and therefore, he is not eligible to have the premiums stopped at this time. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion 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. 4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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 BC-2009-01044 in Executive Session on 2 September 2009 and 18 September 2009 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2009-01044 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 March 2009, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 8 June 2009. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 22 June 2009. Exhibit D. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 13 July 2009, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 13 July 2009, w/atch. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 July 2009. Panel Chair