RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03670
INDEX CODE: 135.02
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be credited with an additional 30 points during Retirement Year
Ending (RYE) 16 Jun 00.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
1999 - 2000 was identified as a bad year. This occurred despite
his efforts to identify that there might have been issues
surrounding his reassignment due to his unit deactivation. He was
not provided adequate information regarding his options to perform
duty and his RYE 16 Jun 00 was compromised due to incorrect
information he received from his Base Individual Mobilization
Augmentee Administrator (BIMAA) and his resource manager at his
unit. This resulted in him not being able to fulfill his
requirement for a good satisfactory year toward retirement.
Applicant states that he had financial and time constraint issues
at his work which precluded him from accomplishing the minimum
participation requirement.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Prior to the events under review, applicant served on active duty
from 17 Jun 80 through 17 Jun 98. He transferred to the Air Force
Reserve on 18 Jun 98 and is currently participating in the
Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program.
In Jun 99, applicant identified the need to be reassigned due to
his unit being deactivated. His new assignment was effective
15 Dec 00.
During Retirement Year Ending 16 Jun 00, he was credited with
6 inactive duty training (IDT) points, and 15 membership points,
for a total of 21 total and retirement points, and an
unsatisfactory year of participation. As of RYE 16 Jun 03, he has
been credited with 22 years of satisfactory Federal service, with
the last five in a Reserve component.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AETC/CCR reviewed this application and recommended denial.
Based on their analysis of the case, the BIMAA counseled the
applicant to perform all of his training within a window to meet
both his fiscal year (FY) and retention/retirement (R/R) year
requirements. Oct 99 to Jun 00 afforded the applicant
approximately nine months time to complete his requirement of 24
days of training. Additionally, he was advised that applications
for reassignment to another unit could take several months. The
full coordination process was explained to include final assignment
actions at HQ ARPC level.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reiterated his original contentions that he was not
properly counseled or advised and that he identified the
deactivation of his unit would require a reassignment to another
unit. Additionally, at the time he identified that his unit was
being deactivated, he was not advised to complete an AF Form 1288,
Application for Ready Reserve Assignment. Even after several
phones calls, it took until Dec 99 for his reassignment to take
place.
Applicant’s complete response 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 error or injustice. After a thorough
review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are
not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertions, in and by
themselves, are sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale
provided by the Air Force. Applicant argues he was not provided
adequate information regarding his options to perform duty and that
his RYE 16 Jun 00 was compromised due to incorrect information he
received from his Base Individual Mobilization Augmentee
Administrator (BIMAA) and his resource manager at his unit. Based
on the evidence of record, applicant had approximately nine months
to complete his requirement of 24 days of training during
Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 16 Jun 00, which we believe was
adequate time for him to complete his requirement. Therefore, we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that
the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered
either an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
persuasive evidence to the contrary, 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-2003-03670 in Executive Session on 19 February 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AETC/CCR, dated 16 Dec 03, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01372
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was told when he became an individual mobilization augmentee (IMA) that his retention/retirement (R/R) date was 5 Dec and that he needed to earn 50 points between 5 Dec and 4 Dec to have a “good year.” At some point his records were audited and his R/R date was changed to 30 Jan, but he was never notified of the change. This recommendation will provide the applicant a satisfactory year of service...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00705
For RYE 29 Dec 93, the applicant did not earn any points from Sep 93 through Dec 93, then after two consecutive satisfactory federal service years, the applicant received another unsatisfactory year, and did not earn points from Sep 96 through Dec 96. According to Air Force Manual 36-8001, para 2.2, “points may only be credited to the date a member actually performed the duty.” The applicant was credited with points and in the proper retirement years. Based on the evidence of record and...
The applicant’s records under this selection process must be better than all the records below the board score required for selection and equal to or better than at least one of the records that had the board score needed for promotion. If the applicant had been considered by the initial 00E8 Evaluation Board he would have needed a board score of 352.50 to have been selected. During the supplemental process, his records were benchmarked with three records that a received a 352.50 board...
At the completion of the course of treatment she was found fit for full duty and released from active duty back to the Air Force Reserve. No Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was initiated at this time to determine her fitness for duty and AFRES started administrative discharge action under the provisions of AFI 36-3209. Also, in September 1996, ARPC/DPAD terminated discharge action and cleared her to return to active participating status with an assignment limitation code 7 96-0 1447 of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01500
An AF Form 526 (ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summary), dated 15 Feb 86, addressed to the applicant, reflects that as of Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 15 December 1985 he had 18 years, 8 months, and 10 days of satisfactory service. They further state that the applicant would need an additional 1 year, 3 months, and 20 days of satisfactory service to gain eligibility for retired pay. After careful review of the limited records and the applicant’s submission, it appears the applicant believed that...
A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel was erroneously advised by SAF/MIBR on 11 Feb 00 that the Air Force was recommending approval. The supporting statements were noted, as was the applicant’s primary contention that a unique wing policy regarding PME recommendations denied him equal protection for promotion purposes. We note the OPR closing 25...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03272
We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion of the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice as there is no evidence that he did not have sufficient opportunity during the 10 months after his assignment to the 37 th SFS to earn the additional 16 points he needed for a satisfactory year of service for RYE 9 January 2008. The applicant be...
The applicant filed his EOT complaint in August 1987, after he was not selected for renewal of his 3-year initial BIMAA tour. ___________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 3 August 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Panel Chair Ms. Marcia Bachman, Member Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 98E8 to senior master sergeant (E-8), promotions effective Apr 98 - Mar 99. The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, stated that the applicant included a letter of support from his rater, which reiterates Air Force...
In a letter dated 12 Jan 02, the applicant's wife requested an extension of time in which to respond. A copy of his response, with attachment, is at Exhibit G. Then in a letter dated 30 Jan 02, the applicant requested that his case be temporarily withdrawn. _________________________________________________________________ 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...