RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03160
INDEX CODE: 136.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be provided sanctuary zone protection for the purpose of
qualifying for a Regular Air Force active duty retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was not allowed to claim sanctuary zone protection. When she
requested assistance, she was discouraged and verbally reprimanded.
No office in the military personnel flight (MPF) would assist her with
her claim when she was performing an active duty for support (ADS)
special tour. While she was on manday special tours, she tried to
claim sanctuary zone protection and her orders were amended illegally.
In support of her request, the applicant provided an expanded
statement, a supportive statement, copies of AF Forms 938,
Authorization for Active Duty Training/Active Duty Tour, AF Forms 973,
Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders, her
point credit summary, and service history.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Available documentation indicates that the applicant served on active
duty for 19 years, 4 months, and 21 days. She separated from active
duty in 1992 and received a Special Separation Benefit (SSB) payment
of approximately $62,000.
On 12 Feb 94, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the
grade of technical sergeant for a period of three (3) years.
In Apr 94, the applicant was ordered to active duty on three separate
occasions (4-8 Apr 94, 11-15 Apr 94, and 18-22 Apr 94). Her orders
initially stated that she had been placed on ADS manday tours. On 3
May 94, her orders were amended to change her status from ADS to
active duty for training (ADT) for the three periods she had served on
active duty.
By Reserve Order CA-005741, dated 15 Feb 97, the applicant was
relieved from her assignment and honorably discharged from the Air
Force Reserve, effective 11 Feb 97. As of retirement year ending
(RYE) 10 Sep 96, she was credited with 21 years, 4 months, and 21 days
of satisfactory Federal service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/DPX recommended denial indicating that the available evidence did
not support the applicant's version of events, and that her assertions
were not credible. Her belief that a sanctuary zone claim would have
entitled her to retire from the active duty Air Force was legally
incorrect because it was highly speculative, conjectural, and
uncertain.
A complete copy of the AFRC/DPX evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response
indicating that she had 19 plus years and was illegally removed from
ADS orders. Not only was she removed from ADS orders, the orders were
illegally changed from ADS to ADT orders. No one would explain to her
what was meant by "sanctuary.". When she found out that she was in
the sanctuary zone, she tried to claim "sanctuary" and has been trying
ever since with no assistance. She believes she has submitted
documentation which supports her claim. Regarding repayment of her
SSB, the applicant indicated that it should not be a factor for
disapproval of her request.
Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ USAF/JAG recommended denial, indicating that to receive the
benefits of the sanctuary zone, the applicant must have requested
sanctuary protection while on active duty in a non-training status.
Even accepting for arguments sake that the three tours she served in
Apr 94 were truly ADS tours and would have placed her in a non-ADT
status, there was no evidence to support the applicant’s position that
she definitively requested to remain on active duty during that time.
The letter she submitted in support of her appeal did not specify at
what point she requested sanctuary protection. It may well be true
that at some time she asked to remain on active duty, but the record
provided no confirmation that she did so at the appropriate time. In
fact, the former personnel superintendent of the Consolidated Base
Personnel Office (433rd Air Wing) contended that the applicant did not
ask to remain on active duty while she was on her active duty tour.
In short, there was no evidence other than the applicant’s statement
to support her contentions.
In HQ USAF/JAG's view, the applicant's claim of being entitled to
retire from the active duty Air Force was speculative at best. In
1994, she had recently separated from active duty after receiving
nearly $62,000. It is certainly debatable whether the Secretary of
the Air Force would have allowed her to remain on active duty after
that amount of money had just been expended when she voluntarily
separated from active duty less than two years before. In
HQ USAF/JAG's opinion, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that
she met the criteria to be awarded sanctuary protection.
A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAG evaluation is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response
indicating, in part, that she would not succumb to the constant
attempt to discredit her character or defame her integrity. She would
not be swayed from processing her sanctuary package. Nor will she
continue this battle of wits with Judge Advocate General (JAG)
officials. At this point, the burden is placed on the Air Force to
try to prove whose integrity the Air Force will defame. Again with
respect to all involved, she requested sanctuary protection from the
initial three sets of active duty orders and was denied.
Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
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. The applicant's complete
submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were duly
noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the
documentation presented in support of her appeal sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary responsibility (OPRs). Therefore, in the absence of
evidence which shows to our satisfaction that the applicant met the
criteria to be awarded sanctuary protection, we adopt the Air Force
rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed
to sustain her burden of establishing that she has suffered either an
error or an injustice. Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 BC-
2002-03160 in Executive Session on 3 Sep 03, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member
Ms. Beth M. McCormick, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Sep 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/DPX, dated 15 Jan 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, dated 24 Mar 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 2 May 03.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 May 03.
Exhibit H. Letter, applicant, dated 16 Jun 03.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01847
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPX recommended denial indicating the applicant made no claim for sanctuary protection while serving on active duty (other than for training). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 16 Jul 04 for review and response. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC 2002 03160 2
; and, - If so, at the time of the applicant's affirmative claim to sanctuary protection, was the applicant then on active duty (other than for training); that is, was the applicant then performing ADS duties, or had she previously been released from active duty? It follows that the Bond decision has no application to this request because the Bond case did not concern itself with the key issue that's present in this request: "Did this applicant make an affirmative sanctuary zone claim...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01710
The Secretary certainly would not be authorized to include a provision in the contract that provided for recoupment in cases where an officer was involuntarily discharged for medical reasons when the statute otherwise provides that such discharge must be on the basis of a voluntary failure to complete active duty or because of misconduct. Finally, counsel discusses HQ USAF/JAG’s position that paragraph 6(b) of the HPSP contract controls regardless of the reason for disqualification, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03160
On 12 August 2009, the applicant requested an MSD waiver through the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). On 9 April 2010, the AFBCMR granted her MSD waiver to 9 August 2010 to process her extension request through her chain of command. SG2 states it does not appear appropriate for the AFBCMR to extend the applicants MSD a second time without the complete coordination of her chain of command and the recommendation from the AFRC/CC.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-05004
10 U.S.C, § 12686(a) and AFI 36-2131 do not permit the Air Force to require waivers for members who are ordered to active duty for a period of 180 days or more. A complete copy of the AFMOA/SGHI evaluation is at Exhibit G. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel disagrees with AFMOA/SGHIs recommendation, and again points-out the applicant was placed on orders well in excess of 179 days while in the...
The Air Force calls this two-year window “sanctuary.” Normally, sanctuary allows twice passed over officers who have at least 18 years of service to remain on active duty until 20 years and then retire. There are no provisions of law that would allow applicant to be retired with 14 years and 8 months of active service. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should receive credit for four months of active duty to allow...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00072
Regarding the applicants request that she be given a 20 year active duty retirement with full retirement benefits, A1K states that her medical case which included the applicable documentation that ultimately led to a finding of ILOD was appropriately reviewed and a determination was made on that case by the PEB. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant certainly...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02352
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02352 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She receive pay and points for the period Dec 10 through Nov 12. Her medical facility failed to provide the proper documentation to the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) medical board, causing her referral to a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB)....
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00295
The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, noted that Section 2005 provides for recoupment if a member fails to complete the ADSC voluntarily or due to misconduct. On 14 Aug 01, DFAS-POCC/DE advised the applicant that, based on her placement on the TDRL, it was inappropriate at this time to recoup monies which might not be owed if...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04052
He be credited with the time remaining to secure 20 years of active duty service and a Regular Air Force retirement, or he be recalled to active duty status to allow him to receive a Regular Air Force retirement. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel notes that the applicant concurs with the recommendation to grant the requested relief and reaffirms the appropriate relief is to grant the applicant constructive service credit from the date of removal from active duty to the...