RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03667
XXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. He be credited with 28 years of active and reserve duty rather than
27 years.
2. He be awarded the Legion of Merit (LOM) rather than the Meritorious
Service Medal (MSM).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He did not understand how the reserve points system worked and did not earn
creditable or “good years” for a three year period. After separating from
the Air Force in February 1970, he attended law school from June 1970
through 1972. He was an individual mobilization augmentee (IMA) in the
munitions career field until his position was terminated. He then obtained
a reserve position as an Air Force Academy Liaison Officer. He earned well
over 50 points for the three years combined.
He also contends that he served 3½ years on active duty as a Munitions
Officer. Near the time of his mandatory retirement, his active duty
counterpart, Colonel J--- R---, Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), HQ AFRES,
recommended him for a retirement LOM. The recommended award was approved
by the Chief of the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in Denver. When he
reported to Robins AFB for his retirement ceremony, he was informed by the
Deputy Staff Judge Advocate that his award had been downgraded by the Air
Force Policy Board to a MSM. The reason given was that there had not been
enough time between his last MSM and the retirement LOM. The pertinent Air
Force Instruction (AFI) requires a minimum two year period since the last
award. There was, in fact, more than two years between his last MSM (April
1994) and the retirement LOM (July 1996). Col R--- and he discussed
whether to put him in for the last MSM knowing he would be retiring in
1996. He had been led to believe by Awards and Decorations personnel that
he would not likely be awarded a LOM without having at least one MSM oak
leaf cluster. The last MSM period covered over five years of duty, but he
would still have over 2 years before retiring. Therefore, Col R--- put him
in for the MSM. Several months before retiring, he was told by HQ AFRES
Awards and Decorations personnel there should be no problem in his being
awarded a retirement LOM since he had 30 years of service after
commissioning. They said this knowing he had not obtained three “good
years” earlier in his career. They said the 30 years of total service was
what counted. He is also hoping that having another “good year” (28 years)
may help to approve the recommended LOM if not having 30 creditable years
was a factor in the downgrade. He believes it was an injustice to
downgrade the recommended and HQ ARPC approved retirement LOM because he
had performed the duties and responsibilities of a senior colonel assigned
to an important IMA position. He believes his responsibilities and
performance were especially noteworthy and that he met all the requirements
for the LOM. The fact this was a retirement LOM should also be taken into
consideration. It was not just a little over two years that should have
been considered, but also an entire career of active and reserve duty.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits his last annual point summary,
retirement order, LOM recommendation and citation, draft appeal, last OPR,
and letters of recommendation.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was commissioned in the grade of second lieutenant, Reserve
of the Air Force, on 3 June 1996, and entered on extended active duty (EAD)
on 31 August 1966. On 28 February 1970, the applicant was released from
active duty under the provisions of AFR 36-12, and assigned to the Air
Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) in an inactive status as an IMA reservist.
On 18 July 1972, the applicant was relieved from the Reserve Section MF,
ARPC, and assigned to the Non-Affiliated Reserve Section - A (NARS-A),
ARPC.
For retirement year ending (RYE) 2 June 1971, applicant earned 27
retirement points and was not awarded a satisfactory retirement year. For
RYE 2 June 1972, he was assigned to an inactive status, therefore not
earning retirement points and was only credited with 15
membership/retirement points and not awarded a satisfactory year for
retirement purposes. For RYE 2 June 1973, he earned 7 active duty points,
15 inactive duty points and was awarded 15 membership points for a total of
37 retirement points and was not awarded a satisfactory year for retirement
purposes. All subsequent years were satisfactory for retirement purposes.
On 17 June 1996, the applicant was awarded the MSM Second Oak Leaf Cluster
(2OLC) by for the period 1 May 1994 to 1 July 1996.
On 2 July 1996, applicant’s mandatory separation date, he was assigned to
the Retired Reserve and was credited with 27 years, 0 months, and 29 days
of satisfactory Federal service.
Under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section
12731, a member must earn a minimum of 50 retirement points during his/her
R/R year. Fifteen points are awarded for Reserve membership but the
remaining 35 points must be earned through active duty training (ADT),
inactive duty training, or Extension Course Institute (ECI) courses.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ AFRC/JA, reviewed this application and states
that they do not believe the matters submitted support a request to the Air
Force Personnel Council to reconsider it’s decision to approve the MSM,
instead of the LOM, upon his retirement. The period of the award was short
and the substantive achievements during the period do not support the
higher award.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states his main reason
for requesting another creditable year is to enhance his chances of being
awarded a retirement LOM. He knows a creditable year under normal
circumstances requires 50 points, but it is his understanding the Board may
combine two or more years to grant a creditable year. Now under Reserve
Officer Promotion Management Act (ROPMA), he could serve 35 years from
commissioning instead of the “mandatory” retirement at 30 years under
Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA). While he knows the
advisory opinion will be given consideration, he believes it should only be
given some weight. The SJA for HQ AFRES recommended him for a retirement
LOM. The recommendation was approved by the Chief of HQ ARPC and his
staff, including his SJA. That recommendation process should be given more
weight. He also requests that the Board avail itself of the wide latitude
given under the AFI to award a retirement LOM. He realizes a little over
two years is the minimum time, but he asks for consideration of his case.
There is obviously a difference between active and reserve service; but
what would be the outcome of an active duty colonel with over 27 years of
service who was retiring with a little over two years of service since his
or her last award? Would the recommended retirement LOM be downgraded to a
MSM? As to his position and duties, he understands they have to be of a
high level even for a retirement LOM. His last OPR, he believes, fully
supports his position and duties met this standard. He was the senior IMA
and mobilization augmentee (MA) to the SJA at a major Air Force Command
Headquarters. He continued in this position up to the time of his
retirement. Not reflected in his OPR or award recommendation were the
countless hours of consultations with the Headquarters SJA and his staff on
command legal matters and individual cases. These are part of the high
level duties expected of a senior colonel. No OPR was done for his last
year because the Deputy SJA said one was not required since he was
retiring. Further, he is aware of other Reserve colonels within the AFRES
command structure who held lower positions and duties than his, who were
awarded retirement LOMs. This is also why he believes the downgrade of his
recommended retirement LOM was an injustice to him. The Reserve Forces are
part of the Total Force concept as repeatedly expressed by their national
and military leaders. They should be treated the same when it comes to a
retirement award based on long and faithful service to their branch of the
military and to their Country. He would be ever so grateful to receive
this award.
Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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 probable error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of
record, we are not persuaded that the existing evidence warrants granting
the applicant’s requests. We note he chose not to earn the minimum of 50
retirement points during retirement years ending 2 June 1971, 2 June 1972,
or 2 June 1973. We believe he had the opportunity to participate to earn
the required points to have an additional satisfactory year of Federal
service and did not participate. The applicant also requests that his
Meritorious Service Medal be upgraded to a Legion of Merit. The Air Force
states that the period of the award was short and the substantive
achievements during the period do not support the higher award. We agree.
Therefore, 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 probable 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 19 November 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member
Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Dec 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/JA, dated 15 Apr 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 May 98.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 8 Jun 98.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03132
His record does not show unsatisfactory service (less than 50 points earned) until Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 18 January 2000. A correction was made, and his record now shows 91 AD points, 20 IDT points, 0 ECI points, 15 membership points, 126 total retirement points, and a year of satisfactory service for RYE 18 January 2002. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force...
If this had been a good year, he would have been eligible for the RRL when he was considered for separation [in 90] and his case would have been reviewed as a retirement-in-lieu-of- discharge case. The applicant’s military personnel records, to include documents pertaining to the administrative discharge board and the AF/DRB appeals, are provided at Exhibit B. JACKSON A. HAUSLEIN, JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-03240 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03272
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion of the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice as there is no evidence that he did not have sufficient opportunity during the 10 months after his assignment to the 37 th SFS to earn the additional 16 points he needed for a satisfactory year of service for RYE 9 January 2008. The applicant be...
The applicant is requesting satisfactory service be granted for Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 23 February 1997. I DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 9 8 - 0 1 5 4 9 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 , and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00869
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She and another unit member contacted HQ Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) in July 2006 and inquired as to whether or not her duty status needed to be altered on orders. DPP notes her statement that she was unable to perform IDT training on 13 August 2005 because the entire building was closed on that Saturday and training was not available. ...
I DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D.C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-0 1726 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and AFI 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: ords of the Department of the Air Force relating t- corrected to show that he was credited with...
I DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D.C. Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-0 1726 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and AFI 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: ords of the Department of the Air Force relating t- corrected to show that he was credited with...
He later received a call from ARPC and they informed him that they would not be able to award him point credit because he was assigned to the IRR Non-participating Ready Personnel Section. He is currently pursuing another reserve job to complete his military retirement. He completed SOS on 3 Jan 2002.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02259
DPP states that the applicant was voluntarily assigned to an inactive reserve section from 21 November 2001 until 11 September 2002, when he accepted the IMA position. DPP notes that the fact that the member was assigned to inactive status for a majority of his R/R year, plus the fact that he did not earn 35 points during the time he was in a participating assignment, resulted in him not being credited with a satisfactory year of service. We took notice of the applicant's complete...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AF'BCMR 97-02502 NOV o 4 1992 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: records of the Department of the Air Force relating to rrected to show...