RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02439
            INDEX CODE:  100.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from  Active  Duty)  be
changed to reflect “Officer’s  Resignation  from  all  appointments  in  the
USAF” to “Resigning regular officer accepting a commission as a  reserve  of
the Air Force” and to restore his original pay date.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received inaccurate counseling at the time of his discharge in 1988.   He
intended to transfer to the United States  Air  Force  Reserve  (USAFR),  as
indicated on his original DD Form 214, block 9.  He consulted the USAFR  and
Air National Guard (ANG) and was advised that  officer  positions  were  not
available  at  his  relocation  destination.   Consequently,  the  personnel
technician  who  was  unaware  of  the  far-reaching  consequences  of   his
uninformed advice, instructed him  to  resign  his  commission  rather  than
accept a reserve commission.  His error is evidenced in  a  letter  from  HQ
AFPC  dated  5  December  1988,  changing  block  9  from  “USAFR”  to  “NOT
APPLICABLE.”  When he subsequently and quickly found a position in  a  local
USAFR unit, he learned that he could have  accepted  a  reserve  commission,
thereby  avoiding  a  break-in-service  and  a  confusing  and   humiliating
retaking of the oath-of-office.  He states that this has weighed heavily  on
his  heart  ever  since  he  discovered  it  in  1988.   He  inquired  about
correcting the record when he investigated his eligibility for promotion  to
major and was told a correction was not possible.  Others have  advised  him
that a correction was unnecessary as he still had a  so-called  “good  year”
in Reserve terms.   However,  his  pay-date  and  promotion  eligibility  is
negatively affected by this error.   Correcting  this  administrative  error
escalates in importance as he progresses toward retirement.





In support of his appeal, the  applicant  provided  Special  Order  AD-1889,
dated 18 July 1988, Appointment  Order,  dated  10  March  1989,  and  other
documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the USAF  Reserves  in  the  grade  of
major, having been appointed on 3 February 1989.

During the time period in question the applicant  was  serving  on  extended
active duty in the grade of captain.

Applicant was honorably discharged  on  1  August  1988,  in  the  grade  of
captain,  under  the  provisions  of  AFR  36-12   (Voluntary   Resignation:
Miscellaneous Reasons). He served a total of  8 years,  10  months,  and  20
days total active military service.

On 5 December 1988, the applicant’s DD Form 214 was corrected  in  items  9,
23, 26, and 28 to reflect that he was not transferred to the USAFR, that  he
was discharged rather than released and his narrative reason  was  Voluntary
Resignation: Miscellaneous Reasons rather than Miscellaneous: to attend  the
Administration, Planning and  Social  Policy  (School  Leadership)  Program,
Harvard Graduate School of Education with the corresponding  change  in  his
separation program designator (SPD).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant states  he
received inaccurate counseling at the time of his  discharge.   He  intended
to transfer to the Air Force Reserve, as stated in block 9 of  his  original
DD Form 214.  However, his DD Form 214 was corrected on 5 December 1988  for
administrative corrections and block 9  was  changed  to  “not  applicable.”
The date of pay was adjusted due to a break in  service  from  his  previous
active duty to his Reserve duty.

Based upon the documentation in the file, they  believe  the  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge  regulation.   Additionally,  the   discharge   was   within   the
discretion of the discharge authority.   The  applicant  provided  no  facts
warranting a  change  in  the  discharge  he  received.   Accordingly,  they
recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied.



The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a  response  that  is  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  Applicant  contends  that  he  received
inaccurate counseling at the time of his discharge.  He alleges he  intended
to transfer to the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR).  However, we  do
not find  his  uncorroborated  assertion  in  and  by  itself,  sufficiently
compelling to conclude that he  is  a  victim  of  either  an  error  or  an
injustice.  In this respect, he appears to have checked two blocks  in  Item
7 of his  request  for  separation  indicating  his  desire  to  tender  his
resignation from all USAF appointments and that he would be discharged  from
appointments he held.  However, Item 7D, which indicates  a  request  for  a
Reserve appointment, was left blank.   Since  he  signed  the  form,  it  is
reasonable to conclude that it properly reflected his desires at that  time.
 The fact that he changed his mind and sought a Reserve commission some  six
months later does not result in an inescapable  conclusion  that  he  wanted
the commission at the time of separation.   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence that he was miscounseled as alleged, we agree  with  the
Air Force that his request should be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number  02-02439
in Executive Session on 22 October 2002, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
            Mr. Mike Novel, Member
            Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 September 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 September 2002.




                                OLGA M. CRERAR
                                Panel Chair