RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00339 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: All of his Special Orders covering the period Jun 08 through Sep 10 be changed so Block 1 Authority reflects Title 32 United States Code (USC) §502(f)(2), instead of Title 32 USC §504/505. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was unjustly denied the right to an earlier retirement because the incorrect authority was cited on the sets of orders in question. All the Special Orders he received during the period Jun 08 through Oct 10 were incorrectly coded for his position citing an authority of Title 32 USC §504/505, however, beginning in Oct 10 through his retirement in Jul 11 all his orders for the same assignment were correctly coded as Active Duty for Operational Support (ADOS) citing Title 32 §502(f)(2). By correcting these identified orders, his retirement date would be 4 May 13 instead of 4 Nov 14 (180 days earlier). The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served as a member of the Air National Guard during the period of time in question. According to the documentation provided by the applicant, he served at Langley AFB, VA on a series of active duty orders during the period of Jun 08 through Jun 11, at which point he was transferred to the Retired Reserve awaiting the age of 60 before he could collect retired pay. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB-GO recommends approval. The applicant served on Title 32 orders during the period 2 Jun 08 through 9 Jun 11. During that time, he was placed on orders as required to perform his duties as an Air National Guard Assistant. Prior to this period of service, the National Guard Bureau provided Special Training (ST) days to fund these orders for officers serving as an ANG Assistant. The authority line on the ST orders cited Title 32 USC 504/505. In Oct 11, the order issuing office received approval to switch from ST days to Operational Support days. Orders issued to the applicant after Oct 11 cited Title 32, section 502(f), as the authority. The change in the type of days was made to reflect the fact that ANG Assistants are not training when performing duty with their assigned units. A complete copy of the NGB-GO evaluation is at Exhibit C. ARPC/DPTT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act amended Title 10 USC §12731 reducing eligibility age for receipt of reserve retired pay by three months for each aggregate of 90 days of qualifying active duty performed within a fiscal year. Certain Title 32 USC §502(f)(2) orders qualify for reduced retired pay age. However, in accordance with Title 10 USC §12731(f)(2)(B)(ii), to qualify for reduced retirement age, there must be “…a call to active service authorized by the President or the Secretary of Defense under §502(f) of Title 32 for purposes of responding to a national emergency declared by the President and supported by Federal funds.” The key is not the source of funding, but that orders must activate the member for the purpose of responding to a national emergency. DODI 1215.07, Educational Requirements For Appointment To A Grade Above First Lieutenant Or Lieutenant (Junior Grade) In A Reserve Component, states “for the purpose of responding to either a national emergency declared by the President or a national emergency supported by federal funds.” All training under Title 32 USC §502(f) is federally funded, but Congress specifically expressed their intent that only training in support of national emergency response be credited for the purpose of qualifying for early retirement. Therefore, if the authority line on the applicant’s orders were amended as requested, he still would not qualify for reduced retired pay age because the orders were not issued in response to a national emergency. A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTT evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 29 Sep 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 an error or injustice. 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 ARPC/DPTT and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While we note NGB-GO believes that approval to change the funding stream for the applicant’s orders, special training versus active duty for operational support (ADOS), form the basis for corrective action, we are not persuaded that the requested correction is warranted. Per ARPC/DPTT, a legal basis for reducing eligibility age for receipt of reserve retired pay under Title 10 USC §12731, exists when a member is called to active duty for purposes of responding to a national emergency declared by the President. The applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to establish that the orders he is requesting be changed were issued in response to a national emergency. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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. 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-2014-00339 in Executive Session on 22 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 21 Jan 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB-GO, dated 2 May 14. Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPTT, dated 15 Sep 14. Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 14.