RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02322
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her debt of $5000.00 received in conjunction with her Special
Pay Incentive (SPI) bonus be cancelled.
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
A debt was established because she fell 12 points short of
obtaining 50 points to qualify for a Reserve satisfactory year
from Mar 06 through Mar 07 as required by her SPI contract.
Through no fault of her own, she started drilling with her
Reserve unit five months late. She indicates the delay was due
to the processing of her paperwork through her previous unit.
The Air Force recognized the delay and offered her an additional
period of time to complete the remaining 12 points, which she
promptly earned the additional 12 points and more. The Air
Force now claims that she earned the additional points; however,
they cannot be credited because she was no longer in the bonus
program.
She served in the Air Force specialty expressly stated in her
contract (46N1) when earning the additional 12 points prior to
Mar 09 and she should be credited with the additional 12 points.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal
statement; copies of responses to inquires from her Members of
Congress, dated 17 Aug 09, 7 Dec 09, and 12 May 10, and other
supporting documents.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Based on information provided by the Air Force Reserve office of
primary responsibility (OPR), the applicant was approved for her
SPI contract on 26 Jan 06. She completed her oath of office as
a Reserve officer on 17 Mar 06 and signed the SPI agreement the
same day.
The Point Credit Accounting Record System (PCARS) reflects the
applicant performed duty on 8 and 9 Apr 06. Her next duty
performance was recorded on 12 Aug 06. Additionally, the
records reflect during Retention/Retirement (R/R) Year ending
29 Mar 07, she was credited with 38 retirement points, and no
active duty points. During R/R Year ending 29 Mar 08, she was
credited with 23 retirement points, and no active duty points.
During R/R Year ending 29 Mar 09, she was credited with
45 retirement points, and 5 days of active duty.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPAAH recommends denial, stating, in part, since the
$5000.00 payment received by the applicant was based on a full
years participation, which she completed 38 of the required 50
points during that year, she is not entitled to the $5000.00 she
received.
The applicant did not perform at least 12 days of active duty as
required by the SPI contract para 1.2.2. She earned 38 of the
50 points required for a good year of participation, therefore,
the money was recouped per Department of Defense Instruction
(DODI) 1205.12, Reserve Component Incentive Programs Procedures.
The applicant was transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve
(IRR) (inactive status), thus she was removed from the SPI
program.
The complete ARPC/DPAAH evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
She is requesting that the Reserve points in question and
subsequent bonus money awarded to her be reinstated. She worked
hard, completing her nursing degree, while remaining a member of
her original unit and accepted a commission at the local
aeromedical evacuation squadron (AES). She made several
attempts to in-process at the unit; however, it was not until
she contacted the commander that she was told to report in Aug
06. While the record reflects that she participated during the
April unit training assembly (UTA), she was not permitted to
drill until Aug 06.
The Air Forces position through the entire process has been
simply that she was entitled to the bonus if she obtained the
12 points in the appropriate specialty during her first year
which she was not able to do because of the delay. In addition,
she was advised that she could keep the bonus if she completed
12 points in her current specialty. The flaw in the Air Forces
position is that they are arbitrarily ignoring the fact the she
has already completed the 12 points in the 46N1 position, the
specialty expressly stated in the bonus contract and the plain
language of the bonus contract which requires her to complete
her training in the 46N1 specialty.
The applicants complete response, with attachments, is at
Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________
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 took notice
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of
the case; however, 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 addition, we
note, the SPI contract and the subsequent agreed upon contract
required the applicant, in addition to performing her training
in a critically short wartime specialty, to complete a minimum
of 50 retirement points (satisfactory year), including 12 days
of active duty. In reviewing the applicants PCARS record of
participation, it does not appear that she completed the
required 12 days of active duty in accordance with the contract.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no 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 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-2010-02322 in Executive Session on 27 January 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Jun 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPAAH, dated 15 Jul 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Jul 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Aug 10, w/atchs.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00458
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00458 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her record be corrected to reflect 52 retirement points for the year 6 Sep 11 - 5 Sep 12 and satisfactory service for the Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 17 Aug 12. DPTS states that the initial audit, prior service record capture, and resulting R/R...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03487
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03487 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be credited with a satisfactory year of Reserve service for the retention/retirement (R/R) year 17 Jan 11 to 16 Jan 12. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is included at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00431
This audit also generates a letter to the member informing them the audit resulted in changing their R/R date. Instead, she completed the requirements in good faith based on the information she had at the time. We note the applicants contention that she was not notified of the change of her R/R date; however, her original assignment order noted in the remarks section that Your point history record has not been audited and your R&R date may change. Following the audit of her record,...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-04004
Because she was working under the assumption that her R/R date had changed to the date she started working as an ALO (11 August), her R/R year for 27 May 2006 to 26 May 2007 ended up being six (6) points shy of the 50 points required for a satisfactory year of service. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states she never received a copy of the Special Orders dated 12 Sep 06 in the mail or at her unit. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00869
_________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-03045
DPP contends even if she had known of the R/R date change earlier and had the opportunity to schedule her AT dates prior to the new retirement year ending (RYE) date of 21 February 2005 the additional AD points would have resulted in her RYE 21 February 2005 to show only a total of 45 points and a year of unsatisfactory service. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02322
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02322 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her non-selection for promotion to the grade of major by the Calendar Year 2012 (CY12) Nonparticipating Reserve Nurse Corps Major Promotion Selection Board, be removed from her record. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02234
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At or near the time he began accruing points, he was advised by the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) that his R/R date was 1 October – the date he entered Reserve service. He has earned sufficient points for the R/R year ending 26 August 2005 to be considered a satisfactory year of Federal service. DPP’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00954
For RYE 22 December 2002, the applicant is credited with 313 active duty (AD) points, 16 IDT points, 0 Extension Course Institute (ECI) points, 15 membership points, 344 total points and a satisfactory year of Federal service. For RYE 22 December 2003, the applicant is credited with 12 AD points, 8 IDT points, 0 ECI points, 15 membership points, 35 total points and an unsatisfactory year of Federal service. For RYE 22 December 2003, the member is now credited with 12 AD points, 20 IDT...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03439
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...