THIRD ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 91-00038

            COUNSEL:  JULIE K. HASDORFF

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge be declared void, with retroactive pay, points and  sufficient
years of service for  a  20-year  retirement;  or  in  the  alternative,  he
receive a 15-year retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 24 May 1999, the Board reconsidered and denied applicant’s  request  that
his discharge be declared void and that he receive retroactive  pay,  points
and sufficient years of service to qualify for a  reserve  retirement.   For
an accounting of the facts and  circumstances  surrounding  the  applicant’s
separation, and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see  the
Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit U.

In letters, dated 26 June 2000, 15  July  2000,  and  12  August  2000,  the
applicant provided additional documentation  and  requested  reconsideration
of his appeal.  The  applicant  contended  that  his  involuntary  discharge
violated Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 1006(a)  and  8846.
The applicant stated that he was not allowed sufficient time to qualify  for
reserve retirement due to the misapplication of  Title  10  U.S.C.  Sections
8846 and  1006(a)  in  determining  his  mandatory  separation  date  (MSD).
Applicant’s complete  submissions,  with  attachments,  are  at  Exhibits  V
through X.

_________________________________________________________________









AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPP recommends the application be denied.  ARPC/DPP  states,  in  part,
that the provisions of law in effect at  the  time  were  followed  and  the
applicant was given time to qualify for reserve retirement.   The  applicant
did not earn satisfactory  service  during  the  three  years  his  MSD  was
extended to allow him to do so  and  was  discharged  on  his  adjusted  MSD
(i.e., 24 May 1995) in accordance with Title 10 U.S.C. Section 1006(a).

The ARPC/DPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit Y.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s  counsel  states  that  applicant’s  MSD  should  have  been
established as 12 September 1995 (i.e., one  year  and  90  days  after  his
second nonselection in accordance with Title 10 U.S.C. Section 8846 plus  an
additional three years since he was given sanctuary under the provisions  of
Title 10 U.S.C. Section 1006(a),  rather  than  his  involuntary  separation
date of 24 May 1995, as indicated in  the  advisory  opinion.   Furthermore,
due to this misapplication of the  applicable  statues  in  determining  his
MSD, as well as the state of shock he was in when he  learned  that  he  was
going to be separated for not meeting a  unit,  not  a  state,  Professional
Military Education (PME) requirement, he was not allowed sufficient time  to
qualify for reserve retirement.   The  applicant  attempted  to  obtain  the
necessary retirement points prior to his MSD but became overwhelmed  by  the
pressure of having to do so.  In addition, the stress  and  anxiety  of  the
situation caused him to have health problems and marital tensions.

Counsel’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit AA.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/JAG recommends the application be denied.  AF/JAG states, in  part,  that
Title 10, U.S.C. Section 8846 provides that an officer  twice  deferred  for
promotion have an MSD established one year and 90 days  after  the  date  on
which he would have been promoted if he had been recommended  by  the  first
selection board.  Since the applicant’s first selection board  met  in  June
1990 and had he been selected he would have been  promoted  on  24  February
1991.  As such, his  MSD  was  correctly  established  as  24  May  1992  in
accordance with Title 10, U.S.C. Section 8846 (i.e., one year  and  90  days
later) and appropriately adjusted to 24 May  1995  under  Title  10,  U.S.C.
Section 1006(a) (i.e., extended by three years).  Since  he  was  given  the
statutorily mandated time to qualify for reserve retired pay, there  was  no
error or injustice.

AF/JAG also states that under the Fiscal Year 1993 (FY93)  National  Defense
Authorization Act 15-year retirements were extended  to  officers  who  were
involuntarily separated due to unit inactivation, unit  conversion,  Primary
Aircraft Authorization reduction, unit reduction, unit  relocation  and  Air
National Guard/Air Force Reserve imposed force reductions due to  structural
changes.  Since the applicant  was  not  separated  for  any  of  the  above
reasons, it would be inappropriate for the Board to grant his request for  a
15-year retirement.

The AF/JAG evaluation is at Exhibit CC.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s counsel states  that  the  applicant  did  not  confuse  the
former Title 10, U.S.C., Section 8846 with the new  criteria  in  Title  10,
U.S.C., Section 14506, which allows officers  to  continue  on  the  reserve
active-status list until  they  have  completed  20  years  of  commissioned
service.  Certainly under this new standard, he would be allowed  to  retire
and the Board should consider this in deciding his case, in the interest  of
fairness  and  justice.   As  to  the   applicant’s   separation   date   of
12 September, counsel notes that the applicant received  a  letter  from  Lt
Col Albert Lloyd saying that  his  separation  date  would  be  12 September
1993.  Furthermore, the current  provision  of  Title  10,  U.S.C.,  Section
12731(a) (i.e., 15-year retirement) does not restrict its  applicability  to
the categories listed in the advisory opinion.  To the contrary,  it  allows
the Secretary to limit the applicability based on the needs of the  service.
 Allowing the applicant to retire under such  a  provision  would  meet  the
needs of the service and be in the best interest of the applicant.

Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit EE.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After  thoroughly  reviewing  the
evidence of record and the additional documentation submitted  by  applicant
and his counsel, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s MSD  should  have
been established as 12 September 1995 and  that  he  was  denied  sufficient
time to gualify for reserve retirement.   To  the  contrary,  as  previously
indicated by this Board,  the  applicant  was  provided  an  opportunity  to
complete  two  additional  satisfactory  years  of  Federal  service  to  be
eligible for retired pay at age 60.  The contentions of  the  applicant  and
his counsel are duly noted; however, we do not  find  these  assertions,  in
and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale
provided by the appropriate offices of the Air Force which are supported  by
the evidence of record.  The Office of the Judge Advocate  General  (AF/JAG)
states that the  applicant  was  given  the  statutorily  mandated  time  to
qualify for reserve retired pay and that no  error  or  injustice  occurred.
Therefore, based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis  upon
which to  favorably  consider  this  application  and  adopt  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the  applicant  has  failed  to
sustain his burden that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.
Hence, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

2.  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 additional  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  Docket  Number  91-00038  in
Executive Session on 4 February 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member
                  Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit U.  Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
                dated 16 Aug 99, w/atchs.
      Exhibit V.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Jun 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit W.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Jul 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit X.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Aug 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit Y.  Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 18 Jan 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit Z.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Feb 01.
      Exhibit AA.      Letter, Counsel, dated 2 Mar 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit BB.      Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Oct 01.




      Exhibit CC.      Letter, AF/JAG, dated 18 Oct 01.
      Exhibit DD.      Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Oct 01.
      Exhibit EE.      Letter, Counsel, dated 27 Nov 01, w/atch.




                                   ROBERT D. STUART
                                   Panel Chair