Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01279
Original file (BC-2006-01279.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01279
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES




MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 Oct 07



________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He  be  awarded  enough  service  participation  points  to  make  his
Retention/Retirement (R/R) year of 2 February 2005 to 1 February  2006
a satisfactory year of service towards a Reserve retirement.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is currently a civilian Special Agent with the Air Force Office  of
Special Investigations (AFOSI).  He  was  a  member  of  the  US  Army
Reserve (USAR) when he applied for a transfer from the USAR to the  US
Air Force Reserve (USAFR).  He executed the USAFR  Oath  on  13  April
2005 as part of his inter-service transfer from the USAR to the USAFR.
 He was deployed to Iraq in May 2005 for approximately  180  days  and
was not able to perform any Unit Training  Assemblies  (UTA’s)  during
that period.  When he returned from  Iraq  in  November  2005  he  was
assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).  The USAR  had  not
at that time published his inter-service transfer orders and he  noted
no one seemed to  know  whom  he  should  perform  (UTA’s)  with.   In
February 2006, he was told he could attend UTA’s in  March  and  April
2006 with the USAR.  He was also advised to not perform any duty  with
the Air Force until he received his discharge orders  from  the  USAR.
He continued to receive an Army Leave and Earnings Statement (LES) and
incurred monthly Servicemen’s Group  Life  Insurance  (SGLI)  premiums
from both components.  He finally received USAR discharge orders dated
28 February 2006 with an effective date of 13 April 2005.   Therefore,
through no fault of his own, he was not able to  receive  the  minimum
amount of participation points he needed to earn a  satisfactory  year
of service during the retirement year ending (RYE) 1 February 2006.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has  provided  copies  of  his
USAR discharge paperwork and travel documentation.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

After serving nine  years  in  the  USAR,  he  signed  a  request  for
conditional release from the USAR  to  the  USAFR  contingent  on  his
appointment in the USAFR.  A year later he requested an  extension  of
his conditional release and  his  request  was  granted  allowing  his
release through 15 June  2005.   He  signed  an  oath  of  office  and
accepted an appointment in  the  USAFR  on  14  April  2005.   He  was
initially assigned to the 514th Operations Support  Squadron,  McGuire
AFB, NJ.  After his transfer, he  attended  school  and  was  deployed
overseas in a civilian capacity for approximately 6 months.   He  then
transferred to the Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program and
did not participate during the months of 1  November  2005  through  1
February 2006.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPP recommends denial.  DPP contends even though  he  believes
he is not at fault, he was aware of his R/R date  and  the  amount  of
points required for a satisfactory year of service.  The fact  he  did
not earn the requisite  points  was  his  responsibility.   He  is  an
experienced Reservist and though he could not participate for the  six
months he was deployed, he had  a  remaining  six  months  during  the
affected R/R year with which to earn the necessary points.

DPP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
19 May 2006 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,
this office has received no response.

________________________________________________________________

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.   After  a  thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that
his uncorroborated assertion of not knowing who to  perform  UTA’s  with
during the final months of his R/R year, in and by itself,  sufficiently
persuasive  to  override  the  rationale  provided  by  the  Air  Force.
Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility 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.

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  issue(s)   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-
2006-01279 in Executive Session on 11 July 2006, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Ms. Mary C. Puckett, Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 19 May 06
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 06.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03439

    Original file (BC-2006-03439.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    A member’s Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) is established from their Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) in accordance with Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 14507, which requires that a Line-of- the Air Force colonel, not selected for promotion to the grade of brigadier general, be separated not later than the first day of the month following completion of 30-years commissioned service. Although applicant contends he had a break in service from November 1982 to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01517

    Original file (BC-2006-01517.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01517 INDEX CODE: 135.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Four points be added to her Point Credit summary for the Retention/Retirement (R/R) year of 4 January 2005 to 3 January 2006. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 May 06, w/atchs. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00398

    Original file (BC-2010-00398.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00398 INDEX CODE: 135.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect an additional two non-paid inactive duty points and six paid inactive duty training points and satisfactory service for retirement year ending (RYE) 5 September 1990. Documentation does not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00869

    Original file (BC-2007-00869.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She and another unit member contacted HQ Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) in July 2006 and inquired as to whether or not her duty status needed to be altered on orders. DPP notes her statement that she was unable to perform IDT training on 13 August 2005 because the entire building was closed on that Saturday and training was not available. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00843

    Original file (BC-2005-00843.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    As a result of missing medical records she was not able to complete her enlistment with the PAANG and begin earning points until 23 January 2004, after the affected R/R year had passed. DPP notes the issue of missing medical records as the cause of her not earning her final point with the PAANG in time is not relevant. DPP’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01279-2

    Original file (BC-2006-01279-2.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit D. On 15 August 2006, he requested reconsideration based on new evidence provided by his commander. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to applicant be corrected to show that he was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03370

    Original file (BC-2002-03370.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Points for participation can only be credited for the dates the inactive duty was performed. Correction to the advisory is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated that although the Reserve Order DA-01859 does assign him to the 514th AMW as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) he was in fact hired as a full-time Air Reserve Technician (ART). ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-2004-00368

    Original file (BC-2004-00368.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, in accordance with Title 37, United States Code, Section 206[e], while a member may be allowed by their commander to perform duty to make up missed Unit Training Assemblies (UTA’s) for retirement points, the duty must be performed within their R/R, or anniversary, year. They state the member made up the time outside the parameters of the affected R/R year making the one point she earned attributable to her next R/R year of 30 January 2003 through 29 January 2004 instead of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00658

    Original file (BC-2007-00658.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00658 INDEX CODE: 135.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 August 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to reflect satisfactory service for retirement year ending (RYE) 11 November 1999 by transferring four Inactive Duty for Training (IDT) points he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03272

    Original file (BC-2008-03272.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...