RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-05148

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 




APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to show she was released from active duty (AD) on 27 Aug 04, instead of 1 Jul 04.  

2.  She receive DD Forms 214 to document the following periods of active service: 18 Oct 04 to 14 Dec 04, and 2 Apr 05 to 21 Aug 05.



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  Her discharge date for the duty period in question on the Catch 62 (Military payment record) shows 27 Aug 04, and coupled with the corrected dates noted on her DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, should validate changing her release date from 1 Jul 04 to 27 Aug 04. 

2.  She didn’t receive the appropriate DD Forms 214 for the two requested duty periods because she was on multiple assignments with different commands.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.



STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was a traditional (part-time) member of the Air Force Reserve during the matter under review.

According to her DD Form 214, she served on active duty from 6 Oct 03 through 1 Jul 04, a period of almost nine months.  While a DD Form 215 was issued to correct this DD Form 214, the items corrected pertained to how much active service she was credited with during the tour as this information was incorrectly computed; however, said correction had no effect on the period of service she performed.

According to the applicant’s AF Form 1613, Statement of Service, dated 27 Dec 13, the applicant performed active service from 6 Oct 03 through 1 Jul 04 (documented on the aforementioned DD Form 214), 18 Oct 04 through 14 Dec 04, and 2 Apr 05 through 1 Aug 05.

On 31 Jan 10, the applicant was transferred to the retired reserve in the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter with attachments prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. 



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denial indicating there is insufficient evidence of an error or an injustice with respect to the applicant’s request pertaining to the period of service of 6 Oct 03 through 1 Jul 04.  The DD Form 214 in question showing AD from 6 Oct 03 to 1 Jul 04 is correct, matching the member’s corrected point credit summary (AF Form 1613).  Her original AF Form 1613, dated 23 Apr 12, was incorrect and a new AF Form 1613 has been created based on her point credit accounting summary (PCARS) reflecting the correct active duty dates.  Regarding issuing the applicant two DD Forms 214 for the periods 18 Oct 04 through 14 Dec 04 and 2 Apr 05 through 1 Aug 05, she must provide orders and paid travel vouchers (if deployed overseas) in order for this office to produce the requested DD Forms 214.  

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTS 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 24 Jan 14 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).




THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has not 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 regarding the applicant’s request to correct the discharge date, as reflected on her DD Form 214, for the duty period 6 Oct 03 to 1 Jul 04.  We took notice of the applicant’s 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice regarding the contested DD Form 214.  We note that ARPC/DPTS indicates the applicant has failed to exhaust her available administrative remedies with respect to her remaining requests.  Therefore, these aspects of her requests are also denied.  Once she exhausts this avenue of relief, if she still believes she is the victim of an error or injustice, she could request reconsideration of these aspects of her case, provided such a request is accompanied by documentation indicating that the avenue of relief has been depleted.  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-2013-05148 in Executive Session on 14 Oct 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-05148 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPTS, dated 13 Jan 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Jan 14.

						

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
4