Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100264
Original file (0100264.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00264
            INDEX CODE:  128.08

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be retired with Reserve Special Separation Pay (RSSP) as authorized
under the Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is entitled to a retirement with RSSP because he was  involuntarily
reassigned  from  an  Air  Reserve  Technician  (ART)  position  to  a
traditional reserve position of a lower grade.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, copies of his retirement orders  and  revoked  orders,  and
other documents associated to the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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, AFRC/DPM, reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial.   According  to  DPM,  the  RTAP  program  was
authorized under Public Law 102-484 and the Defense Authorization  Act
for Fiscal Year 1993 to afford certain benefits and  entitlements  for
personnel involuntary separated  due  to  Air  Force  Reserve  Command
(AFRC) directed unit inactivation through 31 Dec 01.  AFRC  procedures
are to employ all means to retain  displaced  personnel.   Individuals
whose  personal  desires  do  not  include  retention  must   consider
voluntary reassignment to inactive status or retirement  without  RTAP
benefits.

DPM noted that the applicant was an ART  assigned  to  the  507th  Air
Refueling Wing, Tinker AFB OK.  In Oct 98, he voluntarily resigned his
ART job to accept a position with the Federal Aviation  Administration
(FAA).  Although, the voluntary resignation  rendered  him  ineligible
for RTAP, his commander afforded him the opportunity to  continue  his
military service in a senior master sergeant (SMSgt) position  at  the
507th Air Refueling Wing.  The applicant elected to  transfer  to  the
Retired Reserve effective  1  Apr  99  versus  accepting  a  voluntary
demotion.

DPM believes that the applicant’s request  for  retirement  with  RSSP
should be denied because he is not eligible for RTAP  benefits.   RTAP
benefits are intended for personnel  involuntarily  separated  due  to
AFRC directed unit inactivation.  The  applicant  voluntarily  vacated
his ART position and was afforded  the  opportunity  to  continue  his
military service.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a  response  and
additional documentary evidence which are 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.   Applicant’s  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we find no evidence which would lead  us  to  believe
that corrective action is warranted in this  case.   The  evidence  of
record indicates that, contrary to his own  assertion,  the  applicant
voluntarily resigned his ART position, which rendered  him  ineligible
for RSSP under RTAP.  We note that orders were issued authorizing RSSP
based on an erroneous entry on his retirement application that he  was
eligible for  RSSP.   However,  this  error  was  discovered  and  the
previous orders were revoked prior  to  the  applicant  receiving  any
payments, and new orders were published and sent to him.  Although the
applicant received payments as a result of the delayed  processing  of
the paperwork to stop payments, in our view, he should have questioned
the validity of such payments, especially the second payment which  he
received a year later, in light of the revoked orders and issuance  of
new orders which did not indicate that he was entitled  to  RSSP.   In
view of the foregoing,  and  in  the  absence  of  evidence  that  the
applicant was involuntarily reassigned from his ART position,  or  was
erroneously denied RSSP, we agree with the recommendation of  AFRC/DPM
and conclude that no basis exists 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 26 Jun 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
      Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 20 Mar 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 Apr 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 May 01, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102209

    Original file (0102209.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Air Force should honor its agreement with him by providing five annual Reserve payments upon his retirement after 20 years. Neither HQ AFRC/DPM nor his MPF ever notified him of any change to his RTAP eligibility and allowed him to retire with the understanding that he was eligible for RTAP benefits. We do not believe the applicant should be penalized for an administrative error, and recommend his records reflect that he was, in fact, eligible for and entitled to RSSP under the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800591

    Original file (9800591.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 Sep 95, he was assigned to the Retired Reserve Section in the grade of E-7 and placed on the Air Force Reserve Retired List, awaiting pay at age 60. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel, HQ AFRC/DPM, has determined from their evaluation of the applicant’s case that he is not eligible for Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP) benefits. A copy of his response is appended at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00591

    Original file (BC-1998-00591.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 Sep 95, he was assigned to the Retired Reserve Section in the grade of E-7 and placed on the Air Force Reserve Retired List, awaiting pay at age 60. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel, HQ AFRC/DPM, has determined from their evaluation of the applicant’s case that he is not eligible for Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP) benefits. A copy of his response is appended at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800509

    Original file (9800509.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00509

    Original file (BC-1998-00509.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100276

    Original file (0100276.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement; HQ AFRES/DP letter regarding Selective Reserve Transition Program; assignment orders associated with his administrative reaffiliation; a completion certificate of Air War College Associate Program; officer performance reports closing 4 June 88 and 3 Jul 89; and an AF Form 777 (Air Force Reserve Promotion Recommendation), dtd 31 July 1989. Applicant complete submission is at Exhibit A. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073498C070403

    Original file (2002073498C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The transition packet received by all soldiers stated that if a valid assignment was not available that each soldier qualified for separation pay would receive separation pay for a five-year period and then retired pay from the USAR program at age 60. The applicant provided a copy of a memorandum from the 652 nd ASG unit administrator, dated 22 May 2002, which stated that the position currently held by the applicant was not an authorized position for the 652 nd ASG. He also received a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073499C070403

    Original file (2002073499C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The transition packet received by all soldiers stated that if a valid assignment was not available that each soldier qualified for separation pay would receive separation pay for a five-year period and then retired pay from the USAR program at age 60. The applicant provided a copy of a memorandum from the 652 nd ASG unit administrator, dated 22 May 2002, which stated that the position currently held by the applicant was not an authorized position for the 652 nd ASG. He also received a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050007213C070206

    Original file (20050007213C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Rea Nuppenau | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant provides two AHRC Forms 249-2-E (Chronological Statement of Retirement Points); her Retirement Points Accounting System Statement; a copy of ARPERCEN, Orders C-03-410376A01 dated 14 September 1995; a copy of ARPERCEN, Orders C-03-410376 dated 15 March 1994; reassignment orders dated 9 January 1992; her notification of eligibility for retired pay at...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2000-02768A

    Original file (BC-2000-02768A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 October 2002, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered applicant’s request that the Article 15 imposed on 16 February 1994, and the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 April 1998, be removed from his records and he be sent to a Replacement Training Unit (RTU) to be re-qualified and reinstated in an active status as an Air National Guard (ANG) fighter pilot in...