RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-01044 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His decorations be recorded in his records. 

 

2. He be credited with points for his correspondence courses. 

 

3. His receive credit for his New Jersey (NJ) Air National 
Guard (ANG) service. 

 

4. His Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) premiums 
be stopped. 

 

5. He be promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSgt). 

 

______________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His time in the NJ ANG has been disregarded. 

 

In support of his request, applicant provides documents 
extracted from his military personnel records and several other 
documents associated with his requests. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served in the United States Army (USA) and the 
United States Army Reserve (USAR) from 20 May 1954 to 30 April 
1962; the NJ ANG from 21 October 1967 to 20 October 1980 and the 
United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) from 12 March 1981 to 
30 June 1990. He transferred to the retired Reserves on 1 July 
1990. He completed 20 years, 11 months and 28 days of 
satisfactory service; 33 years, 9 months and 20 days of service 
for basic pay and accrued a total of 2,675 retirement points. 

 

The applicant has been receiving Reserve retired pay since his 
60th birthday (21 January 1994). 


His retired pay is based on 2,680 retirement points and over 33 
years of service for basic pay in the grade of technical 
sergeant. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1POE recommends denial of his request for additional 
decorations. A1POE states that after reviewing the information 
submitted they do not find evidence the decorations he received 
while serving as a member of NJ ANG were not properly recorded 
on his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation/Discharge and Record of 
Service. If the applicant has documentation that proves a 
correction to the NGB Form 22 is necessary, the NJ ANG can issue 
an NGB Form 22a to administratively correct the DD Form 214. 

 

The complete A1POE evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

NGB/A1PS concurs with the subject matter expert and recommends 
denial. 

 

The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

ARPC/DPP recommends denial. DPP states that in order to be 
credited with a year of satisfactory service, a member must 
participate and earn a minimum of 50 points in a specific one 
year period. The maximum points allowed per year are 365. 
There are no extra points credited for being an Air Reserve 
Technician (ART) and his points are correct. Since he did not 
identify which AF Form 526 needs to be updated, DPP reviewed his 
records and determined he has been properly credited with 
service and retirement points so there is nothing to correct on 
any of his AF Forms 526. His courses were properly credited, 
the confusion may be with some of the training courses he 
completed. He submitted copies of certificates showing 
completion of some career development courses (CDCs). The CDCs 
are required training; however, they are not Extension Course 
Institute (ECI) courses and he is not authorized retirement 
points upon completion. DPP has had numerous conversations with 
him regarding his retirement related issues, they have also 
responded to his concerns by letter. He does not understand how 
points and service are credited. DPP has asked for 
documentation verifying his claims; however, he continues to 
provide copies of documents he has already submitted. 

 

RCSBP premiums are paid out of retired pay; the earliest a 
Reserve retirement could meet the requirements for paid-up SBP 
would be age 90. He meets the minimum age requirements but not 
the requirement of having paid 360 SBP premium payments; 


therefore, he is not eligible to have the premiums stopped at 
this time. 

 

The complete DPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. 

 

ARPC/DPB recommends denial of his request for promotion to MSgt. 
DPB states the applicant held a higher graded billet, had the 
required seven skill level in his Air Force Specialty Code 
(AFSC) and had more than 24 months time in grade (TIG) and 8 
years satisfactory service for retirement. However, he did not 
meet the requirements of satisfactory participation (12 active-
duty training days and 24 inactive duty training periods) or 
received a recommendation for promotion from his supervisor. He 
only achieved 10 inactive training points; 4 in December 1987 
and 6 in February 1988. This resulted in an unsatisfactory year 
for retirement purposes for the retirement year ending 11 March 
1988. With such an inadequate amount of participation, his 
supervisor would have had difficulty making a recommendation for 
promotion. Promotion is not a reward for long and faithful 
service, rather it is advancement to a higher grade based on 
past performance and future potential. He did not meet the 
training requirements for the supervisory recommendation for 
promotion. His very low participation rate did not express 
future potential as outlined in the regulation. 

 

The complete DPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and provided copies 
of documents associated with the events cited in his appeal. 

 

The applicant’s review, in its entirety, is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice. After a 
thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we find no evidence that his decorations 
were not properly recorded on his NGB Form 22, or do we find 


evidence showing that his records should be corrected to show he 
was promoted to any grade higher than that currently reflected. 
The available evidence of record does not support a finding that 
he was not properly credited with all his service and or 
retirement points. With respect to his request to have his 
RCSBP premiums stopped, as previously stated by the Air Force 
OPR, he has not met the requirement of having paid 360 SBP 
premium payments and therefore, he is not eligible to have the 
premiums stopped at this time. Therefore, we agree with the 
opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion 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. 

 

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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an 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 BC-2009-01044 in 
Executive Session on 2 September 2009 and 18 September 2009 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

, Member 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2009-01044 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 March 2009, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 8 June 2009. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 22 June 2009. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 13 July 2009, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 13 July 2009, w/atch. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 July 2009. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair