RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00509
            INDEX CODE:  136.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted an Air Force Reserve retirement based on 20 satisfactory
years of service.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Changes in his physical profile impacted on his ability to participate
for pay and  points  and  his  inability  to  reenlist  prior  to  his
Expiration Term of Service (ETS).

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
copies of AF Forms 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, DD  Form  4/1,
Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, discharge  order,  and  his  service
history.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available documentation indicates that the applicant enlisted  in  the
Air Force Reserve on 25 Jan 87 for a period of six (6) years.  He  was
credited with 9 years,  4  months,  and  22  days  of  prior  inactive
military service.  He entered his last enlistment on 13 Dec 92  for  a
period of five (5) years in the grade of technical sergeant.

A memorandum, dated 18 Dec 97, indicated that the applicant,  with  an
expiration term of service (ETS) of 12 Dec 97, had failed to  reenlist
and that discharge was appropriate.

Applicant was relieved from  his  Air  Force  Reserve  assignment  and
honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR 35-41  on  12 Dec 97.
HQ AFRC/DPM indicated that he was credited with 19 years,  10  months,
and 20 days of satisfactory Federal service.

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the   Air   Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record  of
Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Military  Personnel  Division,   HQ   AFRC/DPM,   reviewed   this
application and recommended denial.  DPM noted that HQ  AFRC/SGPS  has
evaluated the  facts  regarding  physical  profiles  assigned  to  the
applicant and found that in Oct 97 he was returned to  duty  (physical
profile 3) and thus, was able to participate for pay  and  points  for
retirement.  The applicant confirmed his knowledge of  being  returned
to duty in paragraph 5 of his attachment to his application.

DPM also noted the 302 RHS/CO stated in his 27 Apr 98 memorandum  that
the applicant was specifically advised that  his  removal  from  civil
service employment affected his civilian employment only and  that  he
could remain a member of the Air Force Reserve and 307 RHS.   The  302
RHS/CO also stated that the applicant declined the offer to  remain  a
member of the 307 RHS, did not attend subsequent  UTAs  (Nov  and  Dec
97), and stated he was not coming back to the 307 RHS  nor  making  up
missed UTAs.  The applicant also stated that in  Jul  97  he  received
notice of his 12 Dec 97 ETS but did not follow up.

HQ ARPC/DPAR’s 12 Mar 98 memorandum stated that the  applicant  should
have been provided the opportunity to transfer to the Retired  Reserve
under the Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP).  According  to
DPM, however, to be eligible for early retirement (15 but less than 20
years of satisfactory service) under the RTAP program  a  member  must
have been affected by force reduction or  have  been  found  medically
disqualified  for  continued  military  service.   The  applicant  was
clearly ineligible for early retirement under RTAP because he was  not
affected by force reduction nor was he  found  medically  disqualified
for continued military service.

DPM indicated that, although it is unfortunate  that  the  applicant’s
years of service fall just  short  of  having  the  minimum  years  of
service to qualify for retirement, they must recommend denial  of  his
request.  Their recommendation for denial was based on HQ  AFRC/SGPS’s
findings that the applicant was authorized to participate for pay  and
points and the fact that he was apparently given  the  opportunity  to
complete his military service.

A complete copy of the DPM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated that he is requesting the  few  additional  points
necessary to complete his full twenty years of service, which  in  his
view, he deserves due to his  devotion  to  performing  his  duty  and
getting the job done as an Air Reserve Technician.

Applicant’s complete response is 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.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, a majority  of  the  Board  does  not  find  the
applicant’s assertions or his  supporting  documentation  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided  by  HQ  AFRC/DPM.   The
available evidence  indicates  that  even  though  the  applicant  was
authorized to participate for  pay  and  points  for  retirement,  and
provided an opportunity to complete his military service, he chose not
to do so.  Furthermore, although he received notice of  his  impending
ETS, he failed to reenlist.  In view of the above, the Board  majority
agrees with  the  recommendation  of  HQ  AFRC/DPM  and  adopts  their
rationale as the basis for its decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered  either  an
error or an injustice.  Accordingly, a majority of the Board finds  no
compelling basis to recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 1 Jun 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request.  Mr. Peterson
voted to grant the request but did not desire  to  submit  a  minority
report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Feb 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 24 Jul 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Aug 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 13 Aug 98.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair