RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03460
      INDEX CODE:  108.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX			COUNSEL: NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be awarded a year of satisfactory federal service for 
retention/retirement (R/R) year 26 July 1994 through 25 June 
1995.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not properly counseled by the Base Individual 
Mobilization Augmentee Administrator (BIMAA), his Unit 
Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) coordinator, or his 
immediate supervisor on the differences between fiscal year 
(FY), Retention/Retirement (R/R), year and calendar year 
training requirements.  Subsequently, he earned a “bad year” for 
retirement.  His points summary shows his participation has been 
above and beyond minimum requirements for the last 22 years of 
service except for the R/R year in question.  As a young staff 
sergeant, the Air Force let him down by not providing him with 
this valuable information.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and copies of his 22 October 2007 ANG/USAFR point 
credit summary and a military personnel brief.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the military personnel data system, the applicant 
is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of 
chief master sergeant (E-9) with a date of rank of 1 May 2005.  
The applicant is currently serving as a Security Forces Manager.  

During the R/R year 26 June 1994 through 25 June 1995, the 
applicant earned 12 active duty (AD) points, 18 inactive duty 
training (IDT) points, 0 correspondence course points, and 
15 membership points, for a total of 45 total retirement points, 
and an unsatisfactory year of service.  A total of 50 points is 
required for a satisfactory year of service.  

As of 25 Jun 2007, the closeout of his last R/R year, the 
applicant had 20 years and 6 months of satisfactory federal 
service.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  It is 
DPP’s opinion that there is no injustice in this case.  DPP 
states that as a Reservist, the applicant had four satisfactory 
service years prior to receiving an unsatisfactory year.  Four 
years is a sufficient amount of time for a member to discover 
the requirements necessary for successful completion in the IMA 
program and for obtaining a Reserve retirement year.  The 
applicant’s BIMAA, program manager, or supervisor were not the 
only sources for information available.  Normally, newly 
assigned IMAs were sent a “Welcome Package” which explained the 
requirements of the program and the minimum points required for 
a satisfactory service year.   

The DPP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant finds the Air Force advisory opinion to be 
unsubstantiated.  He did not receive a “Welcome Package” as the 
advisory author assumes.  He became an IMA several weeks after 
leaving active duty and was subsequently activated for one and 
one half years in support of Operation DESERT SHIELD and DESERT 
STORM.  He feels it is not the job of a naïve staff sergeant or 
technical sergeant to “discover” his or her own responsibilities.  
Both his immediate supervisor and IMA Unit coordinator were not 
properly trained and if they were he would have executed his days 
within the fiscal year.  As a young staff sergeant, he trusted 
the system and the system failed him.  If he was properly 
briefed, he is confident he would have met the ambiguous 
requirements.  If the Board denies his request, he requests proof 
that he was properly briefed, led, and supervised, to include the 
documented training of his immediate supervisors and Unit IMA 
coordinator.

The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachment, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We note the 
applicant’s contentions in reviewing this case; however, we find 
no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing 
the documentation that has been submitted in support of the 
applicant's appeal, we do not believe he has suffered from an 
injustice.  The applicant claims he was not properly briefed of 
his responsibilities for participation in the IMA program; 
however, he fails to provide any evidence to corroborate this 
assertion.  Additionally, he contends that “it is not the job of 
a naive E-4 or E-5 to discover his or her responsibilities.”  We 
take issue to this rationale as many Air Force staff sergeants 
and technical sergeants are put in positions of tremendous 
responsibility and can be supervisors of entire sections.  We 
feel as a non-commissioned officer it was not only the 
applicant’s responsibility, but also his duty to find out what 
his training requirements were, especially since it was an issue 
of such importance that could affect his retirement benefit.  
The applicant also contends that he did not receive training 
requirements information because he was deployed.  However, we 
note that he completed four years of satisfactory service 
towards retirement subsequent to his deployment and prior to his 
unsatisfactory year.  Based on the aforementioned, we do not 
feel that a waiver of the applicant’s minimum training 
requirements is appropriate.  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.  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 this application 
in Executive Session on 7 February 2008, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

	Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	Ms. XXXXXXXXXXX, Member
	Mr. XXXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-03460:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Oct 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 21 Nov 07.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 07.
	Exhibit D.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 10 Dec 07, w/atch.




						XXXXXXXXXXXXX
						Panel Chair