RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01653 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect: 

 

 1) He obtained the minimum requirement of 50 points for 
service in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 

 

 2) He secured the sanctuary protections of 10 U.S. Code 
Section 12646 on or around 9 Jun 09 

 

 3) He was not separated on 1 Mar 10 

 

 4) He be reinstated to the Air Force Reserve in the grade of 
major (0-4) 

 

 5) He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

In a 9-page brief of counsel with 16 enclosures the applicant 
makes the following major contentions: 

 

 1. Due to an administrative error beyond his control, he was 
denied the opportunity to perform reserve duties during FY06. 
The Air Force admitted its responsibility for an the error of 
failing to properly enter and display his security clearance 
status. During FY06, he needed 29 points to secure the required 
50 points; however, he was denied reserve duty and did not earn 
sufficient points for a “good year” from 9 Jun 06 to 8 Jun 07. 

 

 2. But for the Air Force’s administrative errors, his 
mandatory separation date (MSD) would have fallen after he 
secured 18 years of service, thus bringing him within the reserve 
component sanctuary protections of 10 U.S.C., Section 12646. He 
would have continued service until retirement eligibility. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant’s counsel submits a 
nine-page brief of counsel, copies of the applicant’s promotion 
recommendations, officer performance reports, support letters, 
points summary and mandatory separation date (MDS) waiver 
package, and copies of pertinent Air Force Instructions. 


 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to information extracted from the Military Personnel 
Data System (MilPDS), the applicant served in the Air Force 
Reserve in the grade of major (O-4) during the matter under 
review. 

 

During the retention/retirement year 9 Jun 06 through 8 Jun 07, 
the applicant was credited with six inactive duty training (IDT) 
points and 15 membership points, for a total of 21 total points 
which constitutes an unsatisfactory year of Reserve service. 

 

On 17 Sep 07, according to information provided by the applicant, 
he requested excusal from the participation requirements 
prescribed in AFMAN 36-8001 for fiscal year 2006 (FY06) and his 
request was subsequently approved. The basis for his request was 
the fact the noted issues with his security clearance precluded 
him from performing duty during the period indicated. He noted 
the issue with his clearance was resolved in Dec 06. 

 

On 11 Aug 09, the applicant was notified that he was being 
discharged. The specific reason was his two non-selections for 
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. He did not qualify 
for transfer to the Retired Reserve. 

 

On 3 Dec 09, the applicant requested a waiver to extend his MSD 
from 1 Mar 10 to 9 Aug 10, to allow him to complete a 2009 
Retirement/Retention (R/R) year, be properly credited for 
18 years of service and entry into retirement sanctuary. The 
request was approved by his immediate chain-of-command. 

 

On 1 Feb 10, the Chief of Air Force Reserve recommended denial of 
the applicant’s request for a waiver of his Mandatory Separation 
Date (MSD) and retention in service. His review of the case 
determined the circumstances did not warrant individual 
processing of the request to meet the needs of the Air Force. In 
addition, he stated neither the applicant nor his organization 
demonstrated where the loss of the applicant would result in 
mission degradation. 

 

On 16 Feb 10, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel 
disapproved the applicant’s request for retention in active 
status until 9 Aug 10. 

 

On 1 Mar 10, the applicant was discharged from the Individual Air 
Force Reserve in the grade of major, having assumed that grade 
effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 02. 

 


He had 17 years and 9 months of satisfactory service. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC RGM/CC recommends denial. RGM/CC notes the applicant 
accrued three unsatisfactory years of service: Jun 02 - Jun 03, 
Jun 04 - Jun 05 and Jun 06 – Jun 07 (FY06). He received a waiver 
for FY06, but did not have a waiver for prior years. RGM/CC 
states service members must complete a minimum requirement of 
50 points per R/R year to obtain retirement credit for a 
satisfactory year. A waiver from statutory FY participation 
requirements does not warrant a satisfactory year of service. 

 

RGM/CC opines the applicant did not properly plan his Air Force 
participation requirements which prevented him from being 
competitive for promotion. 

 

The complete RGM/CC evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant’s counsel responds that the Air Force evaluation 
failed to address the applicant’s contention that the Air Force 
deprived him of the opportunity to accrue at least 50 points 
during FY06. Counsel states the Air Force recommends denial 
because the applicant had unsatisfactory participation in two 
other periods, from June 2002 to June 2003, and June 2004 to June 
2005. Counsel asserts the Board should note that the applicant 
“made up” for his lost time by performing extra points during the 
following two years. Counsel states that if the Air Force had 
not failed to properly display the applicant’s active security 
clearance in FY06, he would have secured, without question, an 
additional 29 points to add to the 21 he had received, and thus 
receive retirement credit for a good year of service. 

 

Finally, the applicant’s counsel states that the applicant 
actually performed 18 years of service, yet was not credited for 
that service. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, 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. While the 
documentation presented indicates the applicant was precluded 
from performing his reserve duties during the matter under 
review, we are not convinced that said issues precluded him from 
attaining a satisfactory year of Reserve service during the 
contested retirement/retention (R/R) year. In this respect we 
note the applicant has presented documentation, namely his after 
the fact request for a waiver of the participation requirements 
during FY06, indicating the issues with his security clearance 
were resolved as late as Dec 2006. While the applicant was 
eventually credited with 21 points for the contested R/R year, we 
are not convinced he made a reasonable attempt to perform the 
requisite duty to attain a satisfactory year of service. In this 
respect, we note that he was credited with six IDT points which 
he earned by performing three days of training during this period 
of more than five months. However, the other 15 points he was 
credited with are membership points, which are gratuitous and not 
derived from any duty performed by the applicant. In view of 
this, and in the absence of any evidence the applicant was 
somehow precluded from performing duty once his security 
clearance issues were resolved, we are not convinced the 
applicant is the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, 
having no basis to conclude the applicant’s inability to attain a 
satisfactory year of Reserve service was directly attributable to 
his difficulties with his security clearance, we find no basis to 
question the subsequent decision to deny the applicant’s request 
for an MSD extension based on the needs of the service. 
Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested 
relief. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

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. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

, Member 

 


The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2011-01653: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, RMG/CC, dated 26 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair