RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02159
INDEX NUMBER: 131.09
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: James B. Thomas
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be advanced to the grade of captain, his highest grade held, not
only during his final retirement at age 60, but also while he is
serving on active duty.
In his rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation at Exhibit F, applicant
requests he be given an exception to policy waiver to hold the grade
of captain in the Air Force Reserve.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Applicant provides excerpts from the US Code, Title 10, Sections
1370, 8963, 8964, AFI 36-3203, and copies of his official orders for
retirement and assignment to active duty.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 17
Feb 72 and served until 6 Aug 72. He then enlisted in the Regular
Air Force (RegAF) on 7 Aug 72 and served until 6 Aug 76 when he was
released to the Air Force Reserve. He was discharged from the Air
Force Reserve on 16 Feb 78. Applicant enlisted in the RegAF again on
6 Feb 79 to attend Officer Training School (OTS). He was
commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Force Reserve on 3 May 79
and subsequently received a regular commission. He separated from
active duty on 15 Aug 85 and transferred to the AF Reserve. The
applicant enlisted in the RegAF on 15 Nov 85 in the grade of sergeant
(E-4) and served until he retired in the grade of master sergeant (E-
7) effective 1 Nov 01. The applicant enlisted in the Air Force
Reserve Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program on 13 Aug 03
and was promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8) on
1 Jan 04.
The applicant previously applied to the Board in Jun 90 while serving
on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) to be reinstated
to active duty as a commissioned officer. The Board denied his
request (Misc Exhibit).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request. In accordance
with AFI 36-2005, Table 2.1, the applicant must be under age 40 to be
eligible for appointment in the grade of captain. He must apply to
HQ ARPC/DPPRC at age 60 to retire in the highest grade held.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The
applicant being an enlisted member at the time of his retirement was
retired under the law that applies to Air Force enlisted members.
While he did serve on active duty as a commissioned officer from 3
May 79 to 15 Aug 85, he was not entitled to retire as an officer
because he had less than 10 years of active commissioned service as
required by the applicable law. Although the applicant cites the US
Code, Title 10, Section 1370 as being applicable to his case, this
section of the law only applies to those who retire as commissioned
officers, not enlisted members.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant requests an
exception to policy waiver to hold the rank of captain in the Air
Force Reserve. He also provides the following specific responses to
their evaluation:
a. His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)
is 6 Feb 73, which gives him 31 years, 7 months, 24 days of service
credit.
b. He should have returned to active duty at the minimum
rank of captain after he transferred as a captain from the Regular
Air Force (RegAF) into the Air Force Reserve from 13 Aug 85 to 15 Nov
85.
c. The Air Force “Retiree-to Reserve Program” did not exist
prior to Jul 01. The program allows the opportunity to continue
serving in the Air Force Reserve after retirement and to build
longevity.
The applicant recounts the number of Manpower Authorization days of
continuous active duty he has served and opines it should contribute
to his service time for reinstatement to captain.
The applicant also advises the Board of his retention of legal
counsel.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Pursuant to the Board’s request, AFPC/DPPRRP provided an additional
evaluation based on the applicant’s response to their initial
evaluation. They point out the applicant’s TAFMSD is actually 5 May
75 vice 6 Feb 73, which means the applicant will not have a combined
30 years of service until May 05.
AFPC/DPPRRP also discusses the options open to the applicant
regarding retirement after active reserve service performed after
regular retirement. At age 60 the applicant may request to have his
retirement calculated under 10 USC, Section 12733. His retired pay
would then include the service he originally retired with plus all
points credited for retirement under 10 USC, Section 12733.
The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response to the additional Air Force evaluation, the applicant
restated his request for an exception to policy waiver to hold the
grade of captain in the Air Force “Retiree to Reserve” program.
The applicant asks the question of how the Retiree to Reserve program
affects his TAFMSD and where is the guidance that applies to the
program. The applicant also asks how his service in the Reserves
will be credited after 5 May 05. Since he is scheduled to serve
beyond 5 May 05, when he is to be advanced on the retired list,
shouldn’t he also advance in the Reserves. Applicant wants to know
how someone can be retired as an officer and serve on active duty as
an enlisted member.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as
the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been
the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant has not presented
evidence to justify granting a waiver for him to serve in the IMA
program in the grade of captain. He was accepted into the “Retiree
to Reserve” program based on his enlisted grade and specialty skills.
He provides no evidence his services are needed in the IMA program
as a commissioned officer or that he has even applied for such a
position with the Reserves. We believe the evaluations provided by
AFPC/DPPRRP address the relevant issues of why the applicant is
serving as an enlisted member and how any service beyond his
retirement will impact his entitlements. Although the applicant may
advance in grade on the retired list, this does not lead to an
entitlement to serve in the IMA program in the higher grade.
Therefore, 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 Docket Number BC-2004-
02159 in Executive Session on 11 January 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick C. Dougherty, Member
Ms. Barbara R. Murray, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jun 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, ARPC/DPR, dated 23 Aug 04.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 29 Sep 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Oct 04.
Exhibit F. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 4 Nov 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 10 Nov 04,
w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Nov 04.
Exhibit I. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 16 Dec 04.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01276
AFPC/DPAMF2 noted that the applicant further cited a fifty-seven year old accession that he is aware of who had completed two years of active duty, separated, and was to return as a lieutenant colonel in Fiscal Year 2002 (FY02). A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPOC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPRRP reviewed this application and indicated that the United States Code (USC), Title 10, Section 8911, provides that the Secretary of the Air Force may, upon the officer’s...
On 1 Feb 89, the applicant retired under the provisions of AFR 35-7 (Voluntary-Retirement For Years of Service Established By Law) with an honorable characterization of service in the grade of staff sergeant. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Special Programs Section, AFPC/DPPRRP, reviewed this application and indicated that Section 8961, Title 10, USC, states, “Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, a Regular or Reserve of the Air Force....who retires other...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03885
Applicant was appointed in the Reserve of the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel on 30 Sep 02, under the Retired Active Duty Reserve Accession Program (RADRAP). Since the applicant must be retired to apply under the Retired Active Duty Reserve Accession Program the applicant was not placed on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) from the Active Duty List (ADL). Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. In the applicant’s response to the HQ USAF/JAG opinion, he...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05261
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05261 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) be changed from 21 Mar 89 to 13 Oct 87 to include credit for the time he spent in Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corp (AFROTC). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01681
In a 4 Feb 00 appeal, he requested SSB consideration for the Fiscal Year 2000 (FY00) Air Force Reserve Colonel Promotion Selection Board, which convened on 18 Oct 99, and any subsequent Reserve Colonel Promotion Board for which he was not considered. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s previous appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C. On 15 Jun 01, the applicant was notified that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02938
If his RegAF promotion were reinstated, he would be able to stay on active duty until age 62, which would give him enough time to meet his IPZ lieutenant colonel promotion board. The applicant was not offered a RegAF appointment when he was selected for promotion to major because his 55th birthday occurs before he completes 20 years of federal commissioned service. The law clearly outlines the age requirements an officer must meet to be granted a RegAF appointment.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03425
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03425 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: By amendment, his effective date of advancement to the grade of master sergeant on the retired list be changed to his original date of advancement to the grade of master sergeant. Effective 6 Oct 00, the applicant was advanced to the grade of...
He should have been retired as an LTC under the provisions of the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA). Complete copies of his three DD Form 149s are at Exhibit A. A copy of DPPPRA’s letter is at Exhibit D. In his third application (Exhibit A), dated 28 Aug 00, the applicant again asks that his DD Form 214 reflect “Radiation Veteran/Survivor” and that he be promoted to the grade of LTC under the provisions of DOPMA.
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01961
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 24 Aug 98 for review and response. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be given the requested relief. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPOC, dated 31 Jul 98.
A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 24 Aug 98 for review and response. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be given the requested relief. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPOC, dated 31 Jul 98.