RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02146 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Seven additional inactive duty training points be added to his 
record of Air National Guard (ANG) service for the anniversary 
year ending on 5 February 2010. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. He made every attempt to work with his assigned ANG unit to 
receive the required points, but was informed that he would not 
be able to conduct any drill days because he didn’t display a 
“commitment and clear understanding of how he wanted to proceed 
as a member of the ANG”. 

 

2. Instead of being at 18 good years (16 active duty and 2 with 
the ANG) he remained at 17 good years. He has received a good 
year with the Air Force Reserves but feels he also deserves the 
seven points to obtain a good year which will bring him to 19 
good years for retirement. 

 

3. He filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint as he has been 
unable to join another Guard unit that associates with his 
previous unit. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves in 
the grade of Staff Sergeant, E-5. 

 

On 12 March 2012, the applicant filed an IG complaint (Exhibit 
C) via an AF IMT 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, 
Waste and Abuse Complaint Registration, against his previous ANG 
unit and another ANG unit he had attempted to join. The 
complaint alleged slander and unprofessional behavior of certain 
members of both units. He alleged that members of his previous 
unit said slanderous things about him when the unit, in which he 


was seeking a position, called to verify his association with 
the previous unit. Based on the previous unit’s negative 
comments, the gaining unit told him “they did not have an open 
position; as a matter of fact, all their positions were quite 
full.” He believes everything the previous unit said about him 
was obviously on a personal level and has affected his ability 
to join a unit and finish out his last two years of service. He 
is currently at 20 years of service but has 2 bad years. He was 
seven points shy of a good year with his previous unit and took 
off the last year. 

 

The Secretary of the Air Force IG (SAF/IG) reviewed the 
applicant’s allegations. They determined the comments provided 
via email were negative but did not violate any Air Force 
Instructions (AFIs) and the issue was not appropriate for the 
for the IG system and should be addressed by the unit commander. 
Since the complaint involved two ANG units, the case was split 
between points of contact (POCs) for each unit. The POC from 
the gaining unit discussed the case with the applicant to 
determine options. The POC said it was entirely up to the 
command to take an Airman or not. They looked into the 
applicant’s issues but at that time, there was nothing they 
could do to help him get into an ANG unit since he did not want 
to travel on weekends for Drill and most units want their 
personnel to show up for Drill. The POC of the previous unit 
notified the applicant that the unit commander inquired and 
found no slanderous comments made about the applicant between 
the two units. They concluded that an allegation could not be 
framed because no standard was violated. A complaint 
clarification was conducted and the applicant could not provide 
specific information against a standard to warrant an 
allegation. The case was closed on 15 June 2012. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1PS recommends denial. A1PS states the applicant’s 
communication attempt to acquire participation points began 
fifteen days prior to his Retention/Retirement (R/R) closeout 
date. His leadership stated there were no options left and no 
window of opportunity to work his request. The applicant 
inquired with his chain of command about earning participation 
points before his year ended when he learned that retesting for 
Professional Military Education (PME) credit was not an option. 
The applicant proposed to leadership different scenarios to 
receive credit/points; however, his best solution to leadership 
included Advanced Distributed Learning Systems (ADLS) points or 
one day of drill attendance. Leadership noted that ADLS was not 
required at the time and one day of drill was not enough for a 
year of satisfactory service. In accordance with AFI 36-2254 
Vol 1, Reserve Personnel Participation, paragraph 1.2.3, all 
training must be scheduled and approved in advance and the 
supervisor may use any documentation method that best meets 


their needs and the needs of their members. It is the member’s 
responsibility to ensure that all general requirements and 
category requirements in Table 1.1 are met. 

 

The applicant had two weeks to comply with the remaining 
participation points needed towards a satisfactory federal 
service after the correspondence began. They found no error or 
injustice occurred and would not recommend relief from this 
complaint. 

 

The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

NGB/A1P states they concur with NGB/A1PS and recommend relief be 
denied as no error or injustice has occurred. 

 

The complete NGB/A1P evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 29 November 2012 for review and comment within 
30 days (Exhibit F). To date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 careful 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and the 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice. The applicant’s contention that he has been unable 
to join another Guard unit is duly noted; however, we do not find 
the evidence provided is sufficient to overcome the findings of 
the SAF/IG, which concluded that the unit members’ comments did 
not violate any Air Force Instructions. In addition, a complaint 
clarification was conducted and the applicant could not provide 
specific information against a standard to warrant an allegation. 
Therefore, in view of the above and 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 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 15 February 2013, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-02146: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 15 May 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. IG Complaint dated 12 March 2012 (withdrawn). 

 Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 16 November 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 26 November 2012. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 November 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 
, Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member