ADDENDUM TO
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 that: 

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

      He secured the sanctuary protections of 10 USC §12646 on or 
around 9 June 2009.

      He was not separated on 1 March 2010.

      He was reinstated in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of 
major (0-4).

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 21 February 2011, the Board considered and denied a similar 
appeal.  For an accounting of the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the applicant’s requests and the rationale of the 
earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at 
Exhibit E (with Exhibits A through D).

In a letter dated 4 June 2013, the applicant’s counsel submitted 
a request for reconsideration.  Counsel contends that the Air 
Force erred by failing to display the applicant’s national 
security clearance during the first half of Fiscal Year (FY) 
2006, which prevented him from performing reserve duty and 
acquiring the 50 points required for a good year of service.  
While acknowledging the Air Force’s error in that regard, the 
AFBCMR nonetheless concluded that his failure to secure 
50 points was not "directly attributable to his difficulties 
with his security clearance."  Therefore they found no basis for 
granting the relief requested.  The Board also stated that it 
was "not convinced he made a reasonable attempt to perform the 
requisite duty to attain a satisfactory year of service.”  The 
Air Force’s failure to properly reflect and display his security 
clearance was a proximate cause of his failure to secure 
50 service points.

In support of his request for reconsideration, the applicant 
secured a statement from his former military supervisor, who was 
personally aware of his security clearance issues and the unique 
time requirements for reservists seeking to serve within his 
organization during FY 2006.  He also obtained a statement from 
a civilian co-worker who attests to the exceptionally demanding 
pace of work the applicant endured during the second half of FY 
2006.

He also submits a declaration in which the applicant discusses 
the circumstances surrounding his efforts to perform sufficient 
duty during FY 2006 and the reasons he was unable to do so.  As 
noted in his declaration, in planning his FY 2006 reserve 
participation, the applicant was fully aware that his civilian 
employer, who provided highly technical contractor support, 
would be engaged in an intensive effort to bring a new system 
on-line for the Air Force.  Knowing this was going to be a 
difficult year with a great deal of travel time, he planned on 
performing his reserve time early but was precluded during the 
first 6 months of the year as confirmed by the AFBCMR decision.  
His civilian co-worker confirms that there was very little time 
in the first half of 2007 for the applicant to perform reserve 
duties.  He further asserts that he intended to perform his 
reserve duty during the latter half of 2006 so that he would be 
free to fully engage in the transition of the new system to an 
Air Force system of record.  His military supervisor noted that 
initially, there was no opportunity for weekend duty, and 
exercise events were somewhat limited due to the participation 
in the intensive effort to bring a new system on-line for the 
Air Force.  Therefore, reserve component participation was 
mostly limited to individuals whose employers allowed liberal 
leave, or others who did not have full time employment.  
Moreover, the applicant emphasizes that he was barred from 
entering the facility due to the Joint Personnel Adjudication 
System (JPAS) error by an Air Force colonel.  The difficulties 
with the colonel are clearly noted by the applicant’s military 
supervisor.  Circumstances beyond his control, not 
irresponsibility, precluded him from securing the additional 
29 points required for a satisfactory FY 2006.  Had he not been 
precluded from service by the JPAS error, he would have acquired 
the additional 29 points during FY 2006 and reached 18 years of 
qualifying federal service by June 2009, well before his 
Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) of 1 March 2010.  But for the 
error of the Air Force, he would not have been involuntarily 
separated.
It is the practice of the AFBCMR to give applicants the benefit 
of the doubt in close cases as demonstrated in AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-1999-00816-2.  The Board should do so in this case, 
especially in light of the new evidence submitted.  The 
applicant is not requesting that the Board provide him service 
credit and retire him, only that it credit him with 29 points 
and void his separation, so that he can return to uniform and 
continue to serve until retirement. 
The applicant wishes to emphasize to the Board the fact that he 
actually performed 18 years of service, yet was not credited for 
that service as evidenced in Enclosure 8 of the original 
application.  Thus, in granting this application, the Board will 
not provide relief he has not earned.  He is not seeking back-
pay or retirement.  Rather, he seeks credit for 29 points of 
reserve service and void his involuntary separation, so that he 
can return to the Air Force and continue to provide the 
excellent service he always has.

In support of his appeal, counsel provides a legal brief, copies 
of statements from the applicant, his former military supervisor 
and civilian co-worker.

Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
F.


THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  After again reviewing this application and the additional 
evidence provided in support of his appeal, it remains the 
opinion of the Board that the applicant has failed to sustain 
his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  We carefully considered the statements provided by 
the applicant and while we believe the evidence to be new and 
relevant, it is not of such significance as to alter the 
original decision.  As previously noted, the applicant has 
provided no evidence to show his inability to attain a 
satisfactory year of Reserve service was directly attributable 
to his difficulties with his security clearance.  The applicant 
also asserts, in essence, that relief is warranted based on 
precedence and believes AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1999-
00816 supports his request.  However, we disagree.  We note that 
an agency must treat similar cases in a similar manner unless it 
can provide a legitimate reason for failing to do so.  Although 
Counsel states that it is the practice of the AFBCMR to give 
applicants the benefit of the doubt in close cases, and cites 
AFBCMR Docket Number 1999-00816 as evidence, we do not find this 
case is comparable.  In this respect, after a careful review of 
AFBCMR Docket Number 1999-00816 we note the applicant requested 
his RE code be changed, he be promoted to the grade of senior 
airman with back pay and that he receive an apology letter.  
However, the applicant in the current case has different 
requests altogether, therefore they are easily distinguishable.  
In view of this, we do not find that AFBCMR Docket Number 1999-
00816 is identical to the applicant’s case or that it adds any 
credence to his requests.  In the absence of evidence that the 
applicant was treated differently than others similarly situated 
we find no equitable basis to grant any of the relief sought in 
this application.

2.  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 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 6 May 2014, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603:

 , Panel Chair
 , Member
 , Member

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

    Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 2 March 2012,
                w/Exhibits.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Counsel, dated 4 June 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1999-00816-2