RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01695
            INDEX CODE:  121.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

30 days of leave be restored to his leave account.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

From the period of July 2000 through the spring of 2001, he was not  allowed
to take leave due to the policy of the wing leadership.  He was informed  by
the vice wing commander that squadron commanders do  not  take  leave.   His
records indicate that he lost only 10 days of leave.  When  he  asked  about
the handling of excess leave in FY00 he was told by the comptroller that  he
should burn 20 days of leave so that the wing commander would not look  bad.
 Based on that advice, he took 20 days of leave but worked every day of  the
leave period with the exception of one day.  He took that  morning  off  and
then went to work to meet mission requirements.  The policy at the wing  was
not equally applied across the wing.  The wing commander,  other  commanders
and his staff took leave on a regular basis.  He does not believe  that  the
reason for the discrimination was because he was  the  only  Asian  American
commander,  but  he  certainly  cannot  rule  that  option  out.   Upon  his
departure, the vice wing commander told the applicant that he did  not  want
to hire him.  After the retirement of the former  vice  wing  commander,  he
was authorized four periods of leave  during  the  rest  of  his  tenure  at
Malmstrom AFB.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal  statement,  copies
of his online Leave and Earnings Statements (LES), and  his  September  2000
calendar.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of  the  Air  Force
on 23 Jan 86.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on  29  Jul  83.
He was progressively promoted to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel,  having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 May 02.

The applicant entered FY00 with  60  days  of  leave  in  his  account.   By
September 2000 he had earned 27.5 days and was projected to lose 30 days  if
he did not take leave prior to 1 Oct 00.   He  took  20  days  of  leave  in
September 2000 and lost 10 days at the end of the FY.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFM  reviewed  applicant's  request  and  recommends  denial.   DPSFM
states that he reported for command on 1 Jul 00.  Prior to that  he  was  an
Assistant Professor of Aerospace Studies  at  the  University  of  Texas  at
Austin.  There  are  many  opportunities  for  personnel  assigned  to  ROTC
detachments to take leave (e.g. Christmas, spring break,  and  summer).   He
has not explained what prevented him from  taking  leave  for  the  first  9
months of FY00; nor has he explained what caused  him  to  enter  FY00  with
such a high leave balance.  It is unreasonable for him  to  expect  that  he
could report for a new job and take leave for 30 of the first 90 days.

He stated that he did take 20 days of leave but that he was at  work  during
those 20 days; however, he did not provide any proof that  he  was  required
to be at work during this leave period nor did he provide proof that he  was
not allowed to take leave while he was  a  squadron  commander.   The  DPSFM
evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states when he departed Austin TX  he  had  plans  to  take  leave
while enroute but he received a call from the base leadership  at  Malmstrom
AFB and was asked not to take leave and report directly to Malmstrom AFB  so
that his predecessor could take leave.  His position at  the  University  of
Texas allowed little time to take leave except for during the summer,  which
was his plan until he arrived at Malmstrom AFB.  As commandant of cadets  he
had a number of responsibilities outside the academic  year  in  preparation
of programs designed for cadets outside  the  normal  school  term.   It  is
important to note that it is not out of the ordinary for Air  Force  members
to plan 3 to 4 weeks of leave between  permanent  change  of  station  (PCS)
moves.  Applicant reiterates that he did take 20 days of  leave  and  states
that the previously  attached  schedule  clearly  indicates  a  normal  work
schedule during the  leave  period.   The  leave  slip  was  signed  by  his
supervisor with the understanding and knowledge  that  he  was  only  taking
leave as asked by the comptroller so that the wing commander would not  look
bad.  The calendar he provided in addition to the note that was attached  to
his  leave  form  when  forwarded  for  signature,  demonstrates  that   his
supervisor was fully aware that he worked during the leave period.

He was told verbally that he was not to take leave.  He was the  only  Asian
American squadron commander.  Malmstrom AFB has a history  of  bias  against
Asian Americans and he believes that the leave policy  was  applied  to  him
based on that bias.  Prior to 1 Oct 01, he raised the issue with the  former
support group commander.  He did not elect to file  for  correction  of  his
records until after he left Malmstrom AFB because he feared  that  the  wing
commander would reprise against him.

As a commander he ensured that nobody in his squadron lost  leave.   He  has
lost leave previously and has not asked for any waivers or corrections.   He
understands that the mission comes first and  sometimes  leave  is  lost  to
that mission.  However, in this case that is not  why  he  lost  leave.   He
lost leave because it was directed, ordered, and with a purpose.

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or  injustice.   The  applicant's  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, we do not find his  uncorroborated  assertions  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.   Therefore,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of
primary responsibility and adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary,  we  find
no compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought  in  this
application.

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  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  Docket  Number  02-1695  in
Executive Session on 5 Sep 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
      Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 02.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPFSM, dated 1 Jul 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Jul 02.




                                   ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
                                   Panel Chair