RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
          AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03981
            INDEX CODE:  112.10
            COUNSEL:  Mr. Anthony W. Walluck
-           HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be granted a High Year-of-Tenure (HYT) extension and be returned to
duty in the Air Force Reserves and allowed to serve out to his 60th
birthday.

2.  He be assigned to the 433rd Air Wing.

3.  In the alternative, he be paid active duty pay in the grade of master
sergeant for the earnings he lost by being forced to retire early.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served 26 years in the Air Force Reserve.  He applied for and was denied
an extension beyond his HYT even though he had an additional eligibility of
two years of service prior to his mandatory retirement age.  He sought and
found another Air Force unit, DRMO/DRT, that needed his skills and
experience and was granted an extension of his enlistment by the commander
of that unit.  The transfer form was signed by the 433 MOS commander and
sent to the new unit.  However, the form was lost in transit.  Because the
paperwork was lost he was notified that he would be transferred to the
Retired Reserve.  He completed his paperwork for transfer to the Retired
Reserve and was told during his outprocessing that paperwork was lost as
well.  He was granted an extension of time to reaccomplish the paperwork
for transfer.  However, on 14 Feb 03, his unit was activated for a one-year
period.  Because his unit was activated he could not transfer to DRMO.  On
28 Feb 03, he was notified that he was being deactivated and retired.

He was involuntarily discharged despite the fact his unit was activated in
a wartime posture and he was qualified in areas where there were critical
needs by the Air Force.  The 433rd insisted he had 33 years of service when
in fact he had only 31 good years, and that he could not be extended to his
60th birthday, even though DRMO was able to do so.  In addition, he was
later advised that he should have been discharged by personnel at Lackland
AFB since he was on active duty, and he was not offered a separation
physical.

In support of his request, applicant provided his counsel's brief, a
personal statement, documentation associated with his HYT extension
request, Reserve orders, a copy of his point credit summary, and an extract
of AFI 48-133.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Data extracted from the available documentation reflects the applicant
entered active duty on 10 Jan 63 and after serving his four-year tour he
was transferred to the Air Force Reserves.  He was discharged from the Air
Force Reserves on 9 Jan 69.  He had a break in service from 10 Jan 69
through 20 Feb 76.  On 21 Feb 76, he reenlisted in the Air Force Reserves
and served until his name was placed on the Retired Reserve List on 1 Mar
03.  He completed 30 years, 11 months, and 20 days of satisfactory Federal
service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPM recommends denial.  DPM states in accordance with  AFI  36-2612,  a
member's HYT date will be the first day of  the  month  following  the  date
equal to the member's pay date plus 33 years, not to  exceed  age  60.   His
pay date is 21 Feb 70 and his date of birth is 15 Dec  44.   Therefore,  his
HYT was 1  Mar  03  (pay  date  plus  33  years).   AFI  36-2612  authorizes
commanders to recommend members for an extension of HYT  if  the  member  is
deemed essential to the unit  and  also  authorizes  any  commander  in  the
member's chain-of-command to deny a request for HYT extension.   On  26  Nov
02, his  commander  denied  his  request  because  a  sufficient  number  of
experienced personnel existed in the  assigned  unit  to  meet  all  mission
requirements.  He did not receive an  approved  two-year  extension  by  the
commander of the IMA unit at Fort Sam  Houston.   He  was  assigned  to  the
433rd AW at Lackland AFB.  No commander other  than  his  commander  at  the
433rd AW was authorized to approve  an  extension  of  enlistment.   He  was
interviewed for a possible assignment, but he was not  selected.   Regarding
his contention that he was not afforded a separation  physical,  DPM  states
in accordance with  AFI  48-123  medical  examinations  are  mandated  under
certain circumstances.  No evidence has been provided that indicates any  of
those circumstances applied to him.

The DPM evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Counsel states the HYT date (HYTD) that  was  calculated  by  the  personnel
office was in error.  His HYTD should have been 1972  as  explained  in  his
statement.  He  was  released  from  the  Reserves  improperly  due  to  his
erroneous HYTD.  He was also released 50  weeks  early  from  activation  to
active duty and should be reimbursed for the 50 weeks that  he  should  have
served and he should also receive the  retirement  points  that  would  have
resulted.  But for the erroneous HYTD he would have been able to remain  for
another year beyond that active duty period, until age 60.

But for the lost paperwork on his transfer, he would have been  at  the  new
unit prior to his being activated.  In which case he would have  been  there
to serve for the remaining time prior to reaching age  60.   His  activation
for a year when it was believed that  he  only  had  two  weeks  before  HYT
essentially caused his untimely release from the Reserves.

In  support  of  applicant's  request,  counsel  provided   his   statement,
applicant's statement, and  a  copy  of  his  DD  Form  214.   His  complete
response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPS states the applicant incurred a 6-year military service  obligation
on 10 Jan 63 and was discharged on  the  correct  date  of  9  Jan  69.   He
enlisted again on 21 Feb 76.  This  date,  minus  the  six  years  of  prior
service correctly established a pay date of 21 Feb 70.  In  accordance  with
the DoD Military Pay and Allowances Entitlements Manual, the  entire  period
of time, which includes active duty service  as  well  as  inactive  Reserve
service, was creditable for basic pay.  The correct pay date of  21  Feb  70
is currently reflected in the  military  personnel  data  system.   The  DPS
evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The adjustment of his service time when he later entered the active  Reserve
used his total six-year period when they should have used four years as  his
service date.  While he was in an inactive status he  did  not  perform  any
duties or receive pay or points.  While the six-year adjustment was  correct
for pay purposes, it was  not  correct  for  service  time  credited  toward
retirement.  Only "good years" are  counted  for  service  retirement.   His
maximum allowable service time has not been met due to  this  administrative
two-year  inactive  period.   Service  time  and  pay  date  are   different
considerations.  By the Reserve calculations, the  applicant  has  33  years
for service pay computation but only 31 years for retirement  pay  purposes.
The Reserve position is, "you were in the Reserves for 33 years but we  will
only pay you for 31 because two of the years did  not  count."   Applicant's
position is that if they did not count then he cannot be charged for  having
served them.  He still has two additional years of service to  give  to  the
Air Force and it is his desire to complete this service.

In support of his response, counsel provided  a  personal  statement  and  a
point credit  summary.   His  complete  response,  with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we find  not
evidence of an error in this  case  and  after  a  thorough  review  of  the
documentation submitted, we do not believe he has  been  the  victim  of  an
injustice.  In this respect, it appears that his  pay  date,  which  is  the
determinant factor in establishing the HYT date, was  properly  computed  in
accordance the directives.  We are not  persuaded  by  his  assertions  that
proper procedures were not followed  during  his  transfer  to  the  Retired
Reserve or that  he  was  denied  rights  or  privileges  to  which  he  was
entitled.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of  the
Air Force offices of primary responsibility and  adopt  their  rationale  as
basis for our conclusion that he has not been the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  In  the  absence  of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief   sought   in   this
application.

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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2003-
03981 in Executive Session on 16 Jun 04, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
      Mr. Olga M. Crerar, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 13 Jan 04.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated, 16 Jan 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Counsel, dated 3 Mar 04.
    Exhibit E.  Email, SAF/MRBC, dated 4 Mar 04.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 15 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, ARPC/DPS, dated 21 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated, 30 Apr 04.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Counsel, dated 28 May 04, w/atchs




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair