RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01066
            INDEX CODE:  312.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His service records be reviewed and satisfactory service  adjusted  to
allow him to reenlist and qualify for a Reserve retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He tried to transfer from the US Army National Guard to the Air  Force
Reserve (AFR) in January 2003.  He was 54 years old and had  served  a
total of 13 years.  He was told that due to his age, he had to have at
least 14 years of service to qualify for enlistment with the AFR.   He
told the recruiter he had a year with the US Army Reserve and  a  year
with the Coast Guard Reserve that had not been counted.   However,  he
was not able to  provide  documents  for  that  service  nor  was  the
recruiter able to find a record of said service  in  the  system.   In
August 2005, he received a document from  the  Records  Center  in  St
Louis showing credit for a year of service with the  Army  Reserve  in
Ohio.  He tried to enlist with the AFR again and was told that he  was
now too old to reenlist.  He worked with his  senator  and  eventually
found out that the Records Center at  St  Louis  had  screwed  up  and
dropped the ball back in 2003 when he tried to enlist the first  time.
Had the Records Center been able to provide  the  documentation  three
years earlier, he would have been able to enlist in the AFR and  would
now be serving with over 18 years towards a Reserve retirement.

In support of his  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided  a  personal
statement and copies of personnel documentation regarding service with
the AFR, the Army, the Coast Guard Reserve and the Army Guard.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

He began his military service with the US Army on 12 January 1967.  He
was progressively promoted to the grade of specialist  (E-5),  with  a
date of rank (DOR) of 9 May 1969.  On 9 January 1970, he was honorably
discharged from the Army and transferred to the  Army  Reserve  (USAR)
where the record indicates he did not serve a  good  year  through  11
January 1973.  On 11 January 1973, he was  honorably  discharged  from
the USAR for Expiration Term  of  Service  (ETS)  and  remained  in  a
civilian status until 24 May 1988  when  he  joined  the  Coast  Guard
Reserve (CGR).  He left the CGR without serving a satisfactory year of
service and joined the Air Force Reserve (AFR) effective 11 May  1989.
It appears he left the AFR sometime after May 1991 and  enlisted  with
the Army National Guard (ARNG) during April or May 1994.   It  further
appears he served with the ARNG until 20 January 2003.  The  available
record shows he served approximately 13 years of satisfactory  service
from 12 January 1967 to 20 January 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFRC/RSO  recommends  denial.   RSO  cites   Air   Force   Reserve
Instruction (AFRI) 36-2001, Air Force Reserve  Recruiting  Procedures,
wherein is stated a  prior  service  applicant  must  have  an  actual
adjusted age which is less than 40 years old on the date of enlistment
to  be  eligible.   Satisfactory  service  only  accrues  in  one-year
increments and months and days of Reserve service do  not  count.   At
the time of his original application, he was 54 years old.  AFGRI  36-
2001 states applicants unable  to  accrue  20  satisfactory  years  of
service prior to age 60 are ineligible for enlistment.  The AFR has no
obligation to enlist applicants who apply but become ineligible due to
the passage of time.  Further, based on  the  review  of  the  service
records provided, he has less than 12 years  of  satisfactory  service
which would have made him ineligible  at  the  time  of  his  original
application in 2003.

RSO’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disputes the Air Force Reserve’s advisory wherein is  stated
the applicant has less than 12  years  of  satisfactory  service.   He
contends he had served 15 years of satisfactory service in  2003  when
he tried to reenlist with the Air Force Reserve.  He lists each period
of service he contends is a satisfactory year of service.

Applicant’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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  to
include  his  contention  that  had  ARPC   correctly   verified   his
satisfactory service in 2003, he would have been eligible to enlist in
the Air Force Reserve. In this respect, we note that membership  in  a
Reserve component in and of itself without satisfactory  participation
does not equate to satisfactory service.  Therefore, 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
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error  or  injustice,
and in the absence of 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-
2006-01066 in Executive Session on 14 June 2006, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFRC/RSO, dated 5 Apr 06.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 May 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 May 06.



                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair