RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00233

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) of  19 October  1973  be
adjusted to 30 December 1974 so that his  Mandatory  Separation  Date  (MSD)
can be extended until 1 January 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It is extremely unjust that his TFCSD  was  adjusted  based  on  a  19-month
educational delay and requires him to separate with only a  little  over  28
years of service, rather than 30 years of service  as  allowed  at  the  O-6
level.

The applicant states that immediately  after  graduating  from  college,  he
took a 19-month educational delay, which counts against the  30-year  limit,
even though he was essentially in a non-pay civilian  status  at  the  time.
The educational delay lasted much  longer  than  he  intended  and  did  not
result in a degree since he changed career  paths  and  self-terminated  the
educational delay.  In addition, there was an incredibly long delay  in  his
receiving  active  duty  assignment  orders.   Since  his  retired  pay   is
calculated based on points earned, he does not believe  changing  his  TFCSD
would affect his retired pay at all, except to the extent that he  would  be
permitted to earn more points and compete for promotion to the grade  of  O-
7.  However, his request is not for any  personal  financial  benefit  -  he
only wants to serve his country for a longer period of  time.   Furthermore,
O-6s in his career field are in short supply and  everyone  he  knows  wants
him to stay in the reserves as long as possible.  When he  applied  for  the
educational delay, he received no counseling regarding its potential  impact
on the 30-year cap for an O-6.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________




STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The  applicant  is  currently  serving  in  the  grade  of  colonel  in  the
Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program at XXXXX.

He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Force Reserve on  19  May
1973 and entered active duty on 31 December 1974.

He accepted a commission in the Regular Air Force on 11 December 1980.

He was involuntarily discharged from active duty  on  19 December  1986  for
twice failing regular promotion and voluntarily accepted separation pay  and
a 3-year service commitment in  the  Air  Force  Reserve.  He  completed  11
years, 11 months, and 19 days of active service, with 1 year, 7 months,  and
12 days of prior inactive service.

On 20 December 1986, he was appointed a captain in the Air Force Reserve.

He signed a Reserve oath on 28 May 1987, to correlate  with  his  assignment
into the IMA program; however, he was erroneously  processed  into  the  Air
Force Reserve.

He was promoted to the grade of colonel, Air Force  Reserve,  effective  and
with a date of rank of 1 July 1999.

During the processing of  this  application,  it  was  discovered  that  the
applicant was erroneously processed into the USAFR  effective  28 May  1987.
His records were administratively corrected to reflect no break  in  service
and his TFCSD, pay date, and total years service  date,  were  corrected  to
reflect 19 May 1973.

His MSD is 1 June 2003, based on 30 years of commissioned service.

He will reach age 60 on 9 March 2011.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPA recommends the application be denied.  ARPC/DPA  states,  in  part,
that the applicant has served continuously in the military in an  active  or
inactive status since his original  oath  on  19  May  1973.   He  signed  a
Reserve oath on 28 May 1987, to correlate with his IMA assignment;  however,
he was erroneously processed into the Reserve.   This  administrative  error
was discovered following his  request  for  a  correction  of  his  military
records and his record was amended to reflect  no  break  in  service.   His
service has been accurately credited according to the  governing  Air  Force
instruction that states that the TFCSD for an officer includes  all  periods
of Federally recognized commissioned service, whether  active  or  nonactive
duty.  When there is not a break in commissioned  service,  the  TFCSD  will
reflect the date of acceptance of original commission.

The ARPC/DPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that as a Reserve Officer Training Corps  (ROTC)  cadet
in 1973, he received erroneous counseling regarding educational  delays  and
the effect of their timing.  His ROTC detachment highly recommended that  he
receive an educational delay for graduate school.  He was  never  told  that
an educational delay would ultimately mean serving less time in normal  duty
assignment.  He notes that the intent of the “30-year law” is  to  allow  30
years of actual service for officers at the O-6 level  and  counting  unpaid
training time on  educational  delay  as  years  of  service  seems  unfair.
Considering the current critical shortage of senior officers,  an  extension
of his MSD by adjusting his TFCSD would be mutually beneficial to  both  the
Air Force and himself.

Although the evaluation states that his pay date should be 19 May 1973,  the
unsigned, unstamped orders, dated 5 March 2002, indicate that his  pay  date
is 27 October 1973.  In addition,  the  evaluation  is  incorrect  regarding
actual  versus  theoretical  promotion  dates.   In  the  mid-70s,  officers
normally made first lieutenant in two  years  and  captain  in  four  years;
whereas, the evaluation indicates that first lieutenant  would  be  obtained
at three years and captain at the five-year point, which  is  incorrect  for
that timeframe.  It is also unfair  that  ARPC  now  advises  that  his  MSD
should be 1 June 2003 instead of  the  previously  stated  date  because  of
discovering an error that they made.

The applicant’s complete responses are at Exhibits E through I.

_________________________________________________________________

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 applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he has  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant contends  that  his  19-
month educational delay should not be counted towards  the  30-year  service
cap for colonels.   However,  the  governing  instruction  states  that  all
periods of Federally recognized  commissioned  service,  whether  active  or
nonactive, are included in the member’s TFCSD.  Furthermore, when  there  is
no break in commissioned  service,  the  TFCSD  will  reflect  the  date  of
acceptance  of  original  commission.   In  the  applicant’s  case,  he  has
continued to serve in an  active  or  inactive  military  status  since  his
original oath on 19 May  1973.   Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, we believe his established MSD is correct.  In addition, since  his
records have been administratively corrected to reflect that he has  had  no
break in service, we also  believe  his  adjusted  TFCSD  is  correct.   The
office  of  primary  responsibility  has  adequately  addressed  applicant’s
contentions and  we  agree  with  their  opinion  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.

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 issues 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  02-00233  in
Executive Session on 24 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
                       Ms. Cheryl Dare, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPA, dated 17 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jul 02.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Aug 02.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Sep 02.
      Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Oct 02.
      Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Oct 02.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair