RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  01-02452
                       INDEX CODE 135.02
                       COUNSEL:  None

                       HEARING DESIRED: Yes (Wife)


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be awarded sufficient points to make his retention/retirement (R/R)
years ending 30 Jun 51, 52, and 53 satisfactory years of service so he
will have 20 years of satisfactory service for retired pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a member of the Air Force  Reserves  (USAFR)  assigned  to  the
Alaskan Air Command (AAC) from 13 Nov 50 to 20 Jun 53. He performed no
Reserve service during this  period  because  there  were  no  Reserve
Training Programs available in the AAC. He worked as a certified Civil
Aeronautics Authority (CAA) flight engineer for Northern  Consolidated
Airlines, a privately owned company that contracted with the  services
to  deliver  freight,   supplies,   food   and   mail   as   well   as
civilian/military personnel to military sites throughout Alaska. As  a
CAA flight engineer, he was performing duties equivalent in nature and
scope to what the USAF B-29 flight  engineers  were  doing.  AFR  45-7
failed to address the situation when no USAFR training  programs  were
available and that is unjust.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 Mar 66, the  applicant  was  found  physically  disqualified  for
active duty and was assigned to the Retired  Reserve  effective  1 Apr
66.  He has 17 years, 6 months and  9  days  of  satisfactory  federal
service creditable towards retired pay eligibility.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant's military records (Exhibit B),  are  contained  in
the official documents provided in his submission (Exhibit A)  and  in
the letter prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the  Air  Force
(Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPP explains what constitutes  satisfactory  federal  service,
past and present. They  note  the  applicant  was  part  of  the  Non-
Affiliated Reserve Section (NARS) from Sep 50-Mar 54 and was therefore
in  a  non-participating  status.  However,  during  this  period  the
applicant could have earned points  toward  retirement  by  completing
Extension Course Institute (ECI) courses.  There is  no  provision  of
law that allows a member  to  be  credited  with  Reserve  points  and
service for work performed with a civilian company.  Even  though  the
applicant may have been performing duties similar to a military flight
engineer, he was not performing  authorized  military  duty  with  the
USAFR. ARPC/DP could not  find  a  copy  of  AFR  45-7  cited  by  the
applicant; however, AFR 35-41 was the regulation that covered  Reserve
participation and satisfactory service during the early 1950s. The  AF
190 referred to by the applicant was used to list all of the points  a
member earned during an R/R year. Normally, points were  verified  and
signed at the end of each R/R year; however, for members  in  NARS  it
was not unusual to let the card go until the member went  back  to  an
active participating status.  Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 4 Jan 02 for review and comment within  30  days.   In  a
letter dated 12 Jan 02, the applicant's wife requested an extension of
time in which to respond.  On 14 Jan 02, the AFBCMR Staff advised  the
applicant that statutory mandate precluded  granting  extensions,  but
that he could temporarily withdraw his case  until  he  was  ready  to
proceed.  In a letter dated 18 Jan 02, the  applicant  explained  that
ECI courses or any other participating activities were  not  available
to him.  He also enclosed a copy of AFR 45-7, dated 31 Dec 48.

A copy of his response, with attachment, is at Exhibit G.

Then in a letter dated 30 Jan 02, the  applicant  requested  that  his
case be temporarily withdrawn.  The AFBCMR Staff advised him that  his
case had been administratively closed on 15 Feb 02 in accordance  with
his request.

On 12 and 14 Mar 02, the applicant's Congressional representative  and
senator,  respectively,  forwarded  additional  documents   apparently
supplied by the applicant and his wife. Included is a copy of a letter
from the Chief of History, Pacific Air Forces.  The Chief asserts that
in 1951 the AAC discontinued its mobilization assignment  program  for
Air Reserve personnel  in  Alaska  based  on  the  limited  number  of
Reservists there. The Chief  contends  the  applicant  was  unable  to
participate due to program nonavailablity.

The Congressional submittals, with attachments, are at Exhibit J.

The applicant then submitted a DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 02,  with  an
additional statement and  attachments,  some  of  which  were  already
forwarded by his representative.

The applicant’s second DD Form 149 is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has 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 error or injustice. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that the applicant should be awarded  sufficient  points  to
give him three additional satisfactory years of  service  for  retired
pay. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however,  we  do  not
find these assertions, in and by themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive
to override the rationale provided  by  the  Air  Force.   We  do  not
dispute  the  fact  that  in  1951  AAC  apparently  discontinued  its
mobilization assignment program for Air Force personnel in Alaska  due
to the limited  number  of  Reservists  in  that  area.  However,  the
applicant’s submission has not  established  that  the  Air  Force  is
somehow responsible for where he chose to live  and  work  and  should
therefore be held culpable for his not earning sufficient  points  for
three good years.  The evidence he submits does not compel us to award
him credit for time he did not serve. We therefore adopt the rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden  of  having  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice. In view of the above, we conclude that this  appeal  should
be denied.

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  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of 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 7 May 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                 Mr. George Franklin, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket No. 01-
02452 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Aug 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPP, dated 26 Dec 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Jan 02.
      Exhibit E.  Letters, Applicant's Wife, dated 11 & 12 Jan 02.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Jan 02.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Jan 02, w/atch.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Jan 02.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Feb 02.
      Exhibit J.  Letters, Congressionals, dated 12 & 14 Mar 02,
                                 w/atchs.
      Exhibit K.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Apr 02, w/atchs.




                                   VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                   Panel Chair