ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01653 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that: He obtained the minimum requirement of 50 points for service in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006. He secured the sanctuary protections of 10 USC §12646 on or around 9 June 2009. He was not separated on 1 March 2010. He was reinstated in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of major (0-4). He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 21 February 2011, the Board considered and denied a similar appeal. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s requests and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E (with Exhibits A through D). In a letter dated 4 June 2013, the applicant’s counsel submitted a request for reconsideration. Counsel contends that the Air Force erred by failing to display the applicant’s national security clearance during the first half of Fiscal Year (FY) 2006, which prevented him from performing reserve duty and acquiring the 50 points required for a good year of service. While acknowledging the Air Force’s error in that regard, the AFBCMR nonetheless concluded that his failure to secure 50 points was not "directly attributable to his difficulties with his security clearance." Therefore they found no basis for granting the relief requested. The Board also stated that it was "not convinced he made a reasonable attempt to perform the requisite duty to attain a satisfactory year of service.” The Air Force’s failure to properly reflect and display his security clearance was a proximate cause of his failure to secure 50 service points. In support of his request for reconsideration, the applicant secured a statement from his former military supervisor, who was personally aware of his security clearance issues and the unique time requirements for reservists seeking to serve within his organization during FY 2006. He also obtained a statement from a civilian co-worker who attests to the exceptionally demanding pace of work the applicant endured during the second half of FY 2006. He also submits a declaration in which the applicant discusses the circumstances surrounding his efforts to perform sufficient duty during FY 2006 and the reasons he was unable to do so. As noted in his declaration, in planning his FY 2006 reserve participation, the applicant was fully aware that his civilian employer, who provided highly technical contractor support, would be engaged in an intensive effort to bring a new system on-line for the Air Force. Knowing this was going to be a difficult year with a great deal of travel time, he planned on performing his reserve time early but was precluded during the first 6 months of the year as confirmed by the AFBCMR decision. His civilian co-worker confirms that there was very little time in the first half of 2007 for the applicant to perform reserve duties. He further asserts that he intended to perform his reserve duty during the latter half of 2006 so that he would be free to fully engage in the transition of the new system to an Air Force system of record. His military supervisor noted that initially, there was no opportunity for weekend duty, and exercise events were somewhat limited due to the participation in the intensive effort to bring a new system on-line for the Air Force. Therefore, reserve component participation was mostly limited to individuals whose employers allowed liberal leave, or others who did not have full time employment. Moreover, the applicant emphasizes that he was barred from entering the facility due to the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) error by an Air Force colonel. The difficulties with the colonel are clearly noted by the applicant’s military supervisor. Circumstances beyond his control, not irresponsibility, precluded him from securing the additional 29 points required for a satisfactory FY 2006. Had he not been precluded from service by the JPAS error, he would have acquired the additional 29 points during FY 2006 and reached 18 years of qualifying federal service by June 2009, well before his Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) of 1 March 2010. But for the error of the Air Force, he would not have been involuntarily separated. It is the practice of the AFBCMR to give applicants the benefit of the doubt in close cases as demonstrated in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1999-00816-2. The Board should do so in this case, especially in light of the new evidence submitted. The applicant is not requesting that the Board provide him service credit and retire him, only that it credit him with 29 points and void his separation, so that he can return to uniform and continue to serve until retirement. The applicant wishes to emphasize to the Board the fact that he actually performed 18 years of service, yet was not credited for that service as evidenced in Enclosure 8 of the original application. Thus, in granting this application, the Board will not provide relief he has not earned. He is not seeking back- pay or retirement. Rather, he seeks credit for 29 points of reserve service and void his involuntary separation, so that he can return to the Air Force and continue to provide the excellent service he always has. In support of his appeal, counsel provides a legal brief, copies of statements from the applicant, his former military supervisor and civilian co-worker. Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. After again reviewing this application and the additional evidence provided in support of his appeal, it remains the opinion of the Board that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. We carefully considered the statements provided by the applicant and while we believe the evidence to be new and relevant, it is not of such significance as to alter the original decision. As previously noted, the applicant has provided no evidence to show his inability to attain a satisfactory year of Reserve service was directly attributable to his difficulties with his security clearance. The applicant also asserts, in essence, that relief is warranted based on precedence and believes AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1999- 00816 supports his request. However, we disagree. We note that an agency must treat similar cases in a similar manner unless it can provide a legitimate reason for failing to do so. Although Counsel states that it is the practice of the AFBCMR to give applicants the benefit of the doubt in close cases, and cites AFBCMR Docket Number 1999-00816 as evidence, we do not find this case is comparable. In this respect, after a careful review of AFBCMR Docket Number 1999-00816 we note the applicant requested his RE code be changed, he be promoted to the grade of senior airman with back pay and that he receive an apology letter. However, the applicant in the current case has different requests altogether, therefore they are easily distinguishable. In view of this, we do not find that AFBCMR Docket Number 1999- 00816 is identical to the applicant’s case or that it adds any credence to his requests. In the absence of evidence that the applicant was treated differently than others similarly situated we find no equitable basis to grant any of the relief sought in this application. 2. 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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 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 6 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-01653: Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 2 March 2012, w/Exhibits. Exhibit F. Letter, Counsel, dated 4 June 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit G. AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1999-00816-2