RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02991
            INDEX CODE:  135.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her  Reserve  Transition  Assistance  Program   (RTAP)   benefits   be
reinstated along with her early qualification for Reserve retired  pay
at age 60.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She completed requirements for reassignment to Air  Reserve  Personnel
Center (ARPC) with authorized RTAP benefits in August 2000 to  include
early retirement qualification for retired  pay  at  age  60.   On  16
August  2000,  her   supervisor   confirmed,   with   the   Individual
Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Reserve liaison, that her  position  was,
indeed, considered surplus due to Base Realignment and Closure  (BRAC)
action.

In December 2000, she received a letter, dated 16 December 2000,  from
Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)  offering  her  the  opportunity  to
accept one of two positions offered as a result of her position  being
deleted.  Another option on the letter was to accept RTAP and transfer
to the Reserve Retired list  should  neither  position  suffice.   She
declined both positions  and  acknowledged  there  were  no  positions
available  within  commuting  distance  that  she  was  eligible  for.
Therefore, since she  was  deemed  eligible  for  RTAP  benefits,  she
attached an application for transfer to the retired reserves.

Six months later, in June 2001, she was notified by AFMC that ARPC had
returned her application for  the  retired  reserves  without  action.
ARPC had determined she was not eligible for RTAP and arranged for her
to  perform  Active  Duty  Training  (ADT)  at  Defense  Finance   and
Accounting Service  (DFAS)  at  Denver,  CO,  and  her  inactive  duty
training (IDT) at DFAS in San  Antonio,  TX.   On  10 July  2001,  she
informed AFMC that, based on their letter dated 16 Dec 03 offering her
RTAP and early retirement, she  had  made  career-altering  decisions.
The Dec 03 letter from AFMC had clearly stated  she  would  no  longer
have an ongoing obligation with the AF Reserve.

ARPC concluded that her situation had  met  the  reasonable  commuting
distance rules in DODI 1215.18, E2.1.1.1 when they reassigned  her  to
DFAS-Denver.  She argues that the ARPC  interpretation  is  inaccurate
and applies only to AFRES units that drill monthly and  provide  meals
and lodging for it’s  members.   Her  situation  was  more  accurately
defined in DODI 1215.18, E2.1.1.2 that requires a 50-mile radius at an
IDT site where government meals and quarters are not provided.   Since
she resides outside the required 50 miles from  DFAS-San  Antonio  and
they do  not  provide  meals  or  lodging,  the  reasonable  commuting
distance rule does not apply and she is actually  eligible  for  early
qualification of retired pay at age 60  under  RTAP  guidelines.   She
notes the distinction between the two rules  may  be  minor  but  also
observes that ARPC relied on the Instruction to reassign her to  DFAS-
Denver with the option to perform  IDT’s  at  DFAS-San  Antonio.   She
respectfully requests the Board review the enclosed documents and give
favorable consideration to restoring her option for  early  retirement
eligibility at age 60.

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided copies of:

      1. RTAP chapter on Involuntary Reassignments.
      2. An email from Air Logistics Command (ALC) to applicant’s Wing
stating her surplus status due to base closure.
      3. Letter from  HQ  AFMC  to  applicant  notifying  her  of  two
reassignment opportunities and her eligibility for RTAP.
      4. Letter from HQ AFMC to  applicant  notifying  her  of  ARPC’s
denial of her RTAP eligibility.
      5. Letter from applicant to HQ AFMC notifying her  commander  of
her dilemma.
      6. Copy of Enclosure 2 of DODI 1215.18, Definitions.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is a former IMA, who was assigned to AFMC,  Wright-Patterson
AFB, OH.  She performed both ADT and IDT at Kelly AFB in San  Antonio,
TX, approximately 81.5 miles from her home residence  in  Austin,  TX.
On 16 December 2000, the AFMC Program Manager notified  her  that  she
was eligible for benefits under RTAP Group III  as  a  result  of  her
position being deleted due to BRAC  and  she  had  over  15  years  of
satisfactory service.  The letter also notified her of  two  positions
for which she was qualified that were within  a  reasonable  commuting
distance or close proximity to the location of the unit she  had  been
affiliated with.  On 3  January  2001,  she  declined  both  positions
stating they were outside her commuting distance.  In accordance  with
RTAP policy, AFMC then forwarded her  RTAP  application  to  ARPC  for
action.  ARPC checked for available positions she was  qualified  for.
One was found at DFAS-CO.  On 21 March 2001,  ARPC  advised  the  AFMC
Program  Manager  they  must  offer  her  the  position   before   her
application for RTAP could be processed.  AFMC requested  ARPC  review
Air Force policy once more to ensure compliance with AF policy and the
intent of the law.  ARPC did so and reaffirmed their decision  to  not
act on her RTAP application until she had the opportunity to  consider
the available DFAS-CO position.  ARPC added that AFMC must counsel the
applicant to ensure she understood  that  by  declining  a  reasonable
assignment offered to her, she would no longer be  eligible  for  RTAP
consideration.  On 10 July 2001, she declined  the  position  and  was
consequently reassigned to the Non-obligated, Non-participating, Ready
Personnel Section (NNRPS) effective 1 November 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPP recommends denial.  DPP states the position offered her  from
ARPC was located in Denver, CO but that the Program Manager at DFAS-CO
agreed to allow her to perform  her  IDT’s  at  the  DFAS-San  Antonio
office thereby providing the same commuting distance she endured  when
assigned to Kelly AFB, TX.  Consequently, not only  did  the  DFAS-San
Antonio site meet the definition of reasonable commuting  distance  in
accordance with DODI 1215.18 and Air Force Instruction 2115,  it  also
met the requirement cited  in  the  RTAP  guidance,  “…if  not  within
reasonable commuting distance, (then) within close  proximity  to  the
location of the unit with which the member as been  affiliated.”   DPP
states the applicant clearly declined a valid  assignment  offered  to
her that was both within  reasonable  commuting  distance  and  within
close proximity to the location of the unit with which  she  had  been
affiliated.  DPP notes, when her position was identified as surplus by
BRAC, she was traveling to Wright-Patterson AFB,  OH  to  perform  her
ADT’s and traveling 81.5 miles to San Antonio to  perform  her  IDT’s,
both from her place of residence in Austin, TX.

DPP’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states there are several inconsistencies in the ARPC/DPP
advisory and she is presenting comments  and  additional  evidence  to
dispute DPP’s findings.  Paragraph 2a of the DPP advisory  states  her
supervisor advised her of her eligibility for  RTAP  while,  in  fact,
she, along with other reservists assigned to Kelly AFB,  were  briefed
on their eligibility by the commander of ARPC in a mass briefing.  She
based her decision on this briefing that took place in March 1998.

She had originally planned on completing  the  requirements  for  RTAP
early in the fiscal year.  As a favor to the Wing at  Kelly  AFB,  she
agreed to stretch out her 12 remaining IDT’s through  August  2000  in
order to help her unit with self-inspections.  HQ ARPC  initiated  new
policy restricting the release of reserve members in June  2000.   Had
she not accommodated the Wing at Kelly AFB she  would  have  qualified
and applied for RTAP by the end of March  2000  -  prior  to  the  new
policy in June 2000.  From the onset of the BRAC findings, she kept in
constant contact with HQ AFMC to identify any job opportunities in her
area.  HQ AFMC assured her there were none.  Based on this  certainty,
and her belief she had nearly completed her  Reserve  commitment,  she
accepted a more demanding civilian  position  that  precluded  further
Reserve service.  She did not realize the door  could  close  on  RTAP
availability without warning.  Consequently, she feels as  if  she  is
being penalized for continuing to support her Wing in good faith.

She notes the  DPP  advisory  states  she  clearly  declined  a  valid
assignment offered her  that  was  both  within  reasonable  commuting
distance and within close proximity to the location of the  unit  with
which she had been affiliated.  DPP continues to point out that  prior
to BRAC she was traveling to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH to  perform  her
ADT.  She states this contention is completely false.  She states  she
has never been to Wright-Patterson AFB for any reason at any  time  in
her life.  She believes DPP obviously has her  records  confused  with
someone else and that the Board in making their final decision  should
therefore not use DPP’s conclusion.  She addresses DPP’s  citation  of
DODI 1215.18 E2.1.1.1 in determining that DFAS-San  Antonio  as  being
within reasonable commuting distance based on mileage alone is suspect
as the next paragraph (E2.1.1.2) clarifies the mileage  limitation  is
reduced to a 50 mile radius when an IDT site does not offer government
quarters or subsistence - which DFAS-San Antonio does not.  She states
DFAS-San Antonio is not even a military installation.   Further,  both
her ADT’s and IDT’s, prior to BRAC, were  always  performed  at  Kelly
AFB.  Both of the original positions offered by ARPC were well outside
the definition of reasonable commuting distance and/or close proximity
as was the position offered by ARPC in lieu  of  addressing  her  RTAP
application.  Had ARPC offered her a  position  that  allowed  her  to
perform both ADT’s and IDT’s  at  DFAS-San  Antonio,  she  would  have
accepted since it would have been very similar to her situation  prior
to being affected by BRAC.  It is clear to her that ARPC does not know
“where” she was performing her ADT’s and IDT’s and therefore does  not
understand why she would think the two assignments they  offered  her,
DFAS Denver and  Wright-Patterson  AFB  are  significantly  outside  a
reasonable commuting distance (1000 and 1,200 miles, respectively).

Based on  the  inaccuracies  she  has  identified  and  the  incorrect
statement from DPP about her performing duty at Wright-Patterson,  and
that DPP chooses to selectively  apply  DODI  1215.18  to  make  their
decision, clearly shows general confusion  and  mismanagement  of  her
case  and  career.   She  appreciates  the  Board’s  consideration  of
correcting her military record and  respectfully  requests  the  Board
direct ARPC/DPP to not transfer her  to  NNRPS  effective  1  November
2001, but rather transfer her to  the  Retired  Reserve,  effective  1
November 2001 under RTAP Group III.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of  error  or  injustice.   After  carefully  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we believe that the applicant has established that
she has been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   Appropriate
authorities advised her that she was eligible for  RTAP  benefits  and
qualified  for  a  reserve  retirement  at  age  60.   Based  on  this
information, she made a career decision to obtain a civilian  position
that precluded her participation in the military.  Six  months  later,
it was determined that she was not  eligible  for  RTAP  and  she  was
offered another assignment, which based on her decision concerning the
civilian position, she declined the  assignment.   Applicant  contends
that the assignment was not in reasonable commuting distance and based
on the evidence of record,  we  agree.   Based  on  the  circumstances
presented in this case,  we  believe  that  the  applicant  should  be
entitled to RTAP benefits and eligible for Reserve retired pay at  age
60 as she was previously informed.  In view of the above findings,  we
recommend that her records be corrected as indicated below.
______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a.  She was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve, and
was transferred to the Air Reserve  Personnel  Center,  Non-Affiliated
Reserve Section (NARS), effective 31 October 2001.

      b.  At the time of her transfer to NARS on 31 October 2001,  she
was eligible to  participate  in  the  Reserve  Transition  Assistance
Program (RTAP), and she applied for and was transferred to the Retired
Reserve Section, Awaiting Pay, effective 1 November 2001.

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 6 January 2004, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
      Mr. J. Dean Yount, Member




All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 29 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Nov 03, w/atchs.




                                   Ms. Peggy E. Gordon
                                   Panel Chair



                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC




[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary

BC-2003-02991




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

            a.  She  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Air  Force
Reserve, and was transferred to the Air Reserve Personnel Center, Non-
Affiliated Reserve Section (NARS), effective 31 October 2001.

            b.  At the time of her transfer  to  NARS  on  31  October
2001, she was  eligible  to  participate  in  the  Reserve  Transition
Assistance Program (RTAP), and she applied for and was transferred  to
the Retired Reserve Section, Awaiting Pay, effective 1 November 2001.








     JOE G. LINEBERGER

     Director

     Air Force Review Boards Agency