RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00273 

 

 COUNSEL: XXX 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be credited with 24 years and 4 months of total active 
service, thereby entitling him to an active duty retirement. 

 

2. In the alternative, he be credited with 18 years, 9 months, 
and 1 day of total active service, thereby entitling him to 
retention on active duty under the provisions of “sanctuary” 
under 10 USC 12686. He be reinstated to active duty to complete 
the requirements for retirement, or provided sufficient 
constructive service credit to qualify for an active duty 
retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. He had attained more than 18 years of total active service, 
thus qualifying him for retention under “sanctuary” under the 
provisions of 10 USC 12686. However, the Air Reserve Personnel 
Center (ARPC) erroneously computed his total creditable active 
service to show he had not attained 18 years of active duty 
service. As a result, he was erroneously involuntarily released 
from active service and forced to request a reserve retirement 
rather than an active duty retirement. 

 

2. He was denied an extension of his active duty orders for the 
purpose of obtaining documents relative to his sanctuary claim. 

 

3. He was issued an erroneous DD Form 214, Certificate of 
Release or Discharge from Active Duty. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides an eight page 
supplemental statement of counsel, and copies of his 
DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty; NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation 
and Record of Service; DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment 
Document; and correspondence related to his expiration of term 
of enlistment. 

 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 12686 
(10 USC 12686), also known as “sanctuary,” a member of a reserve 
component who is on active duty (other than for training) and is 
within two years of becoming eligible for retired pay or 
retainer pay under a purely military retirement system, may not 
be involuntarily released from that duty before he becomes 
eligible for that pay, unless the release is approved by the 
Secretary of the military department concerned. 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 27 Dec 84 and was honorably 
discharged on 6 Jun 86 and credited with one year, five months, 
and ten days of total active service. 

 

On 18 Feb 87, the applicant enlisted in the Florida Army 
National Guard (ARNG). On 7 Jun 88, he was honorably discharged 
and credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 19 days of total reserve 
service. His NGB Form 22 reflected he was previously credited 
with one year, five months, and nine [sic] days of total prior 
active service from his previous period of service with the 
Regular Air Force. 

 

On 8 Jun 88, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for 
a period of six years. 

 

On 1 Dec 88, the applicant enlisted in the California Air 
National Guard (ANG) in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). On 
6 Feb 89, he commenced a period of active duty and was released 
from active duty on 31 Oct 89. He was credited with 8 months 
and 26 days of total active service as well as the one year, 
five months, and ten days of previous active service 
attributable to his first period of service with the regular Air 
Force. On 21 Feb 93, he was honorably discharged from the 
California ANG and credited with 4 years, 2 months, and 21 days 
of total reserve service. 

 

On 22 Feb 93, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force 
and served on active duty until his honorable discharge on 
13 Aug 97. He was credited with 4 years, 5 months, and 22 days 
of total active service and four years and three months of total 
prior active service. At this point in his service, he had been 
credited with 8 years, 8 months, and 22 days of total active 
service. 

 

On 14 Aug 97, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve. 
On 20 Oct 97, he was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty 
for a period of four years, unless sooner relieved, with an 
original expiration term of service of 19 Oct 01. His tour of 


active duty was extended multiple times, ultimately resulting in 
an expiration term of service of 30 Sep 07. 

 

According to the applicant’s military personnel records, he was 
relieved from his reserve assignment on 30 Jan 07 and 
transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), effective 
1 Feb 07, due to a conflict between his civilian employment and 
military obligations. 

 

The contested DD Form 214 was issued documenting a period of 
active service from 20 Oct 97 through 30 Sep 07. The applicant 
was credited with 9 years, 11 months, and 11 days of active 
service for this period; and 8 years, 9 months, and 28 days of 
total prior active service; for a total of 18 years, 9 months, 
and 9 days of total active service. 

 

According to the applicant’s Air National Guard (ANG)/Air Force 
Reserve (AFR) Point Credit Summary, dated 27 Sep 11, he was 
credited with only 72 active duty points during the period 
18 Feb 05 through 30 Sep 07, indicating he was not performing 
continuous active duty during this period. 

 

On 14 Oct 08, the applicant was relieved from his reserve 
assignment and placed on the Reserve Retired List, awaiting 
retired pay at age 60. 

 

A corrected DD form 214 was issued documenting a period of 
active service from 20 Oct 97 through 30 Apr 05. The applicant 
was credited with 7 years, 6 months, and 11 days of active 
service for this period, and 8 years, 9 months, and 22 days of 
prior active service, for a total of 16 years, 4 months, and 
6 days of total active service. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

ARPC/JA recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice. Key to resolving the issue of the 
applicant’s total years of active service, and the merit of his 
request, is the period 30 Apr 05 through 30 Sep 07 that was 
erroneously documented on a DD Form 214 issued by ARPC. The 
erroneous DD Form 214, documenting a released from active duty 
date of 30 Sep 07, credits the applicant with more than the 
requisite 18 years of total active service and would provide a 
basis for his claims. However, a thorough review of a variety 
of ARPC records systems establishes the applicant accrued only 
16 years, 4 months, and 6 days of total active service before 
retiring from the Air Force Reserve. ARPC issued a correction 
to this DD Form 214 and a review of the available pay documents, 
as well as the Point Credit Account and Reporting System 
(PCARS), and all of the evidence available supports this 
correction. A statement from the supervisor of the individual 
that published the erroneous DD Form 214 makes it clear the 
applicant’s total active service, as reflected on this form, was 


erroneously calculated. Specifically, the end date of the 
applicant’s active duty order was utilized as the sole basis in 
calculating the applicant’s total active service, without the 
customary verification of the service from multiple sources to 
ensure the applicant indeed served the full term of his orders, 
which he did not. ARPC’s research of pay and points credit 
records indicates that he was not paid during the period in 
question. The lack of any pay and points records for this 
allegedly performed duty is a sufficient basis to conclude that 
such duty was not, in fact, performed. The applicant has not 
provided any external evidence (e.g. bank records or tax 
records) that would establish that he was serving on active duty 
during the period in question. While the applicant cites an 
array of legal decisions to support the proposition that he was 
misinformed or operating under erroneous information when he 
applied for a Reserve retirement, none of the legal authority 
cited in his application is relevant to the factual issue 
serving as the basis for the requested relief – the length of 
his active duty service. ARPC records support the conclusion 
the DD Form 214 was in error and the re-issued form reflects the 
applicant’s accrued time as 16 years, 4 months, and 6 days of 
active service. There is no basis for equitable relief in this 
case. The applicant did not rely on the inaccurate DD Form 214 
to his detriment. It is reasonable to conclude that he knew his 
end of service date was not 30 Sep 07 because ARPC records 
reveal he did not receive military points or pay after 
30 Apr 05, and he has provided no evidence of any such pay. 
Instead, the record reveals that he transferred to the 
Individual Ready Reserve on 1 Feb 07, after not having earned 
pay or points for nearly two years, due to a conflict between 
the requirements of his reserve service and his civilian 
employment. 

 

A complete copy of the ARPC/JA evaluation, with attachments, is 
at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
30 Jul 10 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). In 
response, the applicant’s counsel requested his case be 
administratively closed pending the applicant’s return from an 
overseas deployment (Exhibit E). The applicant’s case was 
administratively closed on 9 Sep 10 (Exhibit F). 

 

The applicant, through counsel, refutes the ARPC contention the 
applicant did not serve on active duty during the period in 
question. While ARPC cites various information sources to 
support this claim, they indicate that only the applicant’s 
active duty order indicates he served the period in question. 
However, this is incorrect as there are two documents, the only 
two that matter, which accurately reflect the applicant’s 
service—the active duty order and the DD Form 214. ARPC had no 


authority to issue a corrected DD Form 214 that is contrary to 
the applicant’s orders. It should also be noted the advisory 
opinion ignores at least one other issue. According to the 
calculations in the advisory opinion, the applicant is entitled 
to only 16 years, 4 months, and 6 days of total active service; 
however, the evidence submitted as Tab G of the applicant’s 
submission accounts for 1 year, 3 months, and 19 days of service 
for which the applicant has not been credited. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit G. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 an error or injustice. The 
applicant contends he had attained more than 18 years of total 
active service, thus qualifying him for retention under 
“sanctuary” under the provisions of 10 USC 12686, but the Air 
Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) erroneously computed his total 
creditable active service to show he had not attained 18 years 
of active duty service. After a thorough review of the evidence 
of record and the applicant’s complete submission, including his 
response to the Air Force evaluation, we are not convinced that 
he has been the victim of an error or injustice. In this 
respect we note the ARPC/JA comments indicating the original 
DD Form 214, which reflected the applicant had attained more 
than 18 years of active service, was issued due to an 
administrative error. Specifically, the service reflected on 
the contested DD Form 214 was erroneously computed based solely 
on the applicant’s active duty orders, without the customary 
verification of the actual service he performed. However, in 
our view, a preponderance of the evidence indicates the 
applicant did not actually serve the entire period of his orders 
as he contends. In this respect, we note that his ANG/AFRC 
Point Credit Summary indicates that he only earned 72 active 
duty points during the more than two and one-half year period 
from 18 Feb 05 through the 30 Sep 07, when he was allegedly 
performing continuous active duty. Additionally, the record 
reflects he was relieved from his reserve assignment and 
transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) on 1 Feb 07, 
nearly eight months prior to the expiration of his active duty 
orders on 30 Sep 07. The stated reason for his transfer to the 
IRR was a conflict between the requirements of the applicant’s 
military duties and his civilian employment, a situation hardly 
possible if the applicant was serving on active duty at the time 
of his transfer. In view of these facts, we find the 
documentation presented insufficient to convince us the 
contested DD Form 214 was anything more than an administrative 


error and find that ARPC’s action to issue the corrected DD Form 
214 was appropriate in the face of said error. We note 
Counsel’s assertion on rebuttal indicating there is another 
1 year, 3 months, and 19 days of active service which is 
unaccounted for in ARPC’s computations; however, the 
documentation provided is insufficient to convince us that 
ARPC’s calculation of the applicant’s active service, as 
reflected on the reissued DD Form 214, is incorrect. Therefore, 
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2010-00273 in Executive Session on 27 Sep 11, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 
 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/JA, dated 1 Jul 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 27 Aug 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Sep 10. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, Counsel, dated 21 Dec 10. 
 

 Panel Chair