RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00354
            INDEX CODE:  135.02, 135.03
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  6 Aug 07

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive “2 weeks summer camp military leave,” and eight months time
lost with 301 points from 1 Jan to 28 Oct.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a 52-year old Air Reserve Technician (ART) supervisor  who  was
replaced by a 28-year old.  He requested two weeks of military  leave.
He contends his request was disapproved because he had  filed  an  age
discrimination lawsuit.  He was  relieved  on  31 Dec  93,  losing  10
months of his four-year enlistment  term  and  suffering  a  financial
loss.   He  went  to  his   Congressman,   the   Office   of   Special
Investigations (OSI), the Inspector General (IG), and  the  Air  Force
Chief of Staff. No one would  help  him.   He  lost  his  ART  job  in
violation of Regulations.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

ARTs are full-time civilian employees who are also members of the  Air
Force Reserve unit in which they are employed.  In addition  to  their
civilian assignments, they are assigned to equivalent positions in the
Reserve organization with a Reserve military rank and grade.   An  ART
employee plays a vital role in combat  readiness  of  his/her  Reserve
unit by training other Reservists and serving as a mobilization  asset
when the unit is mobilized.

The applicant’s military records were not available for review.

According to HQ AFRC/DPZ (Exhibit B),  the  applicant  was  previously
assigned to the Air Force Reserve as an ART and as a Title V  civilian
employee (Non-ART employee).

According to documents provided by the applicant, he reenlisted in the
Air Force Reserve for four years on 28 Oct 90.

On 23 Sep 93, the applicant requested 80 hours of military  leave  for
the period 23 Oct-6 Nov 93; his  request  was  disapproved  that  same
date.  His civilian Air Force supervisor explained that the  applicant
had been allowed to perform an annual active duty  tour  (ADT)  on  or
about 24 Jan-6 Feb 93, used military leave on or about  11-17 May  93,
for a total of four weeks of military  leave  for  the  calendar  year
1993.  Also, the applicant was at  the  time  in  an  “opportunity  to
improve” period that  started  on  29 Jul  93  and  was  scheduled  to
continue for 90 days.  The supervisor asserted  he  and  the  squadron
were strong  supporters  of  military  leave  for  Reserve  and  Guard
programs; however, the applicant’s improvement to a “fully successful”
level was his prime concern.

According to Reserve Order EX-4148, dated 2 Apr 93, the applicant  was
to be relieved from his current assignment, transferred to the Retired
Reserve Section, and placed on  the  Retired  Reserve  List  effective
31 Dec 93, with eligibility for Reserve retired pay at age 60.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFRC/DPZ recommends denial because the applicant’s request does not
include any documentation establishing the denial of his  request  for
military leave was not within  the  appropriate  purview  of  the  DOD
official that denied his request.

A complete copy of the HQ AFRC/DPZ evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s rebuttal is not completely clear.  He  appears  to  be
claiming 12 positions opened up and he was qualified for all of  them.
He contends he was  52,  with  29  years  of  service.   However,  the
Maintenance Superintendent picked a 28-year old  non-supervisor,  even
though the year before this Superintendent had awarded him a sustained
superior performance award.  He indicates he filed age  discrimination
and reprisal complaints against the Superintendent, and  was  relieved
from his ART position and denied eight months of his enlistment.   The
individual  who  denied  his  two-weeks  leave  had  worked  with  the
Superintendent and took his job.  He has a lawsuit ongoing.

Among  other  documents,  the  applicant  provides  a  partial  letter
apparently signed  by  the  Reserve  Maintenance  Superintendent,  who
appeared to be explaining why he did not select the  applicant  for  a
position to which he had applied.  The Superintendent indicated  that,
although the applicant was qualified for the applied position, for the
past 18 months the  Superintendent  had  detected  a  decline  in  the
applicant’s performance as a team player and initiative to function as
a supervisor.   During  the  past  12  months,  the  applicant  seemed
reluctant or unable to exhibit the qualities desired in a  supervisor.
The Superintendent contended he did not discuss  filling  one  of  the
positions with the applicant.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

[Note:  On 3 May 06, the AFBCMR  Staff  requested  HQ  AFRC/DPZ  (A1E)
provide additional information regarding the applicant’s circumstances
and comment on his rebuttal.  However, in an email dated 24 Jul 06, HQ
AFRC/A1E indicated  they  had  nothing  to  add  and  stood  by  their
advisory.]

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis
for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of  an  error
or injustice.  Further, based on the presumption of regularity in  the
conduct of government affairs, and without evidence to  the  contrary,
we must assume the denial of the applicant’s request for two weeks  of
military leave, as well as  his  alluded  to  nonselection  for  other
positions, were proper and in compliance with appropriate  directives.
Therefore, 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 8 August 2006 under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                 Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
                 Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-00354 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Jan 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFRC/DPZ, dated 24 Mar 06.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Mar 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Apr 06, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair