RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-02919

                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His voluntary separation be changed to a retirement.

2.  He receive 16 years and 8 months service credit for retirement.

3.  He receive retroactive pay  and  entitlements  from  30 Apr 88  to
present.

4.  He receive all entitlements associated with retirement.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  believes  he  was  the  victim  of  religious  discrimination  and
conspiracy of silence by his supervisors and superiors.   He  believes
his supervisors and superiors did not give his request for  separation
a creditable evaluation; they just rubber stamped  their  approval  on
his request to be discharged.  His supervisors and superiors  did  not
provide or offer any counseling regarding his options or opportunities
for retention, cross training, etc.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits two personal  statements,
a photograph and copies of  documents  extracted  from  his  military
personnel records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 Aug 71, the applicant contracted his initial enlistment  in  the
Regular Air Force.  He was progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
technical sergeant having assumed the grade effective and with a  date
of rank of 1 Oct 81.  On 23 Dec 87, the applicant submitted a  request
for separation.  The request  was  approved  and  he  was  voluntarily
separated  on  30 Apr 88,  with  an  honorable   discharge   for   the
convenience of the government, miscellaneous reasons.

The remaining relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force, which is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR  notes  the  application  is  not
timely filed, having been submitted by the applicant  25  years  after
his discharge.  The applicant’s request for  discharge  was  voluntary
and the Air Force discharged him as requested.  There was no error  or
injustice surrounding his voluntary request for discharge and  the  AF
granting the request.

DPSOR further notes that  in  order  for  an  enlisted  member  to  be
eligible for retirement they must have no less  than  20  years  Total
Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS).  His TAFMS date is 16 Aug 71.
 The applicant is not eligible for retirement because at the  time  of
his discharge he had 16 years, 8 months and 16 days TAFMS.

By the time Congress enacted Temporary Early Retirement  Authorization
(TERA) and the SecAF implemented  it  to  allow  enlisted  members  to
retire with more than 15 but less than 20 years TAFMS beginning  on  1
May 95, the applicant had already been discharged and it was not  made
retroactive to any discharges or separations prior to its  23  Oct  92
enactment.

The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant comments that he is allowed  to  submit  a  case  within
three years after the discovery date which was  April  2010,  and  the
letter from SAF/MRBR dated 12 Aug 10, indicates his case was accepted.

He takes exception that he was referred to as an applicant rather than
an Air Force member and believes this impacted his separation request.

He disagrees that his commander did not have a requirement to  discuss
other  options  with  him.   He   further   notes   that   incorrectly
categorizing his status for his request, was a keeping of silence, and
perceiving his request to be “an objection of some  kind  to  military
service”, resulting in conspiracy and discrimination.

The Air Force evaluation answered the question of retirement, but  the
basis of his case is unfair and unequal  treatment.  He  believes  his
request should be approved to correct an injustice. His rights  should
be restored and he receive suitable compensation for the injustice.

The complete response by the applicant is at Exhibit E.

The applicant  requested  verification  of  receipt  of  his  rebuttal
response and status of his application (Exhibit F).  On 30 Dec 10, the
Board staff informed the applicant that his rebuttal response has been
received and that his request would be processed and receive full  and
fair consideration (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

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.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission, to include his rebuttal response,  in
judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
the recommendation of the Air Force office of  primary  responsibility
and adopt its rationale as the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of  the  existence
of an error or injustice.  We found no evidence  to  substantiate  his
allegations of discrimination or conspiracy of silence against him  by
his chain of command.  There is no evidence that his voluntary request
for discharge was not  processed  in  accordance  with  the  governing
instruction.  Therefore, we find no basis to favorably  consider  this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2010-02919 in Executive Session on 8 Feb 11, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 10, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOR, dated 28 Sep 10.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 10.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Nov 10.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Dec 10.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Dec 10.





                       Panel Chair