RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:              DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01312
	             	       COUNSEL:  
                               HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  She be allowed to enlist in the Michigan Air National Guard 
(ANG) and retrain into the Paralegal Career Field.  

2.  She be allowed to begin the Paralegal Apprentice Course 
(PAC) as soon as possible.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant’s counsel lays out the applicant’s case in a 6-
page brief of counsel, with attachments.

The applicant interviewed for a paralegal position with the MI 
ANG.  Both the Law Office Superintendent and the Staff Judge 
Advocate expressed a desire to hire her to join their unit.

On 13 Aug 12, the applicant’s recruiter informed her that her 
application was denied because of her age based on return of 
cost of benefit to the Guard.  On 20 Sep 12, the ANG Paralegal 
Career Field Functional Manger (CFFM) disapproved her accession.  
Concerns raised included the applicant’s age, which was 
incorrectly cited as 56 at the time of application when it was 
in fact 55, and the amount of mandatory training the applicant 
would undergo for the position.

A colleague of the applicant, also seeking a paralegal position 
while over 50 years of age with over 20 years of service, did 
receive approval to accept a position with the Delaware ANG.

The applicant still has more than two years to fulfill this 
obligation, and will not reach her mandatory retirement date 
until 2017.  

The ANG Paralegal CFFM cited one reason justifying the 
applicant’s denial.  The primary reason given was that according 
to the ANG Paralegal CFFM, the applicant would be 58 by the time 
she completed the minimum requirements, making such a transition 
“fiscally irresponsible” in light of the mandatory retirement 
age of 60.

An airman retraining into the paralegal career field could 
complete all training to the 7-skill level in less than one and 
a half years.  During that time, the paralegal would be 
available for duty for all but 12 weeks.

The applicant meets the required qualifications.  Her multiple 
positions as a linguist, as an office manager, including for the 
Commander of US Pacific Fleet Command, as an editor for the 
Defense Language Institute, in addition to her numerous 
positions in public affairs for both the National Naval Medical 
Center and the Intelligence Community describes the applicant as 
exactly who should work as a paralegal.

Regardless of the concerns outlined by the ANG Paralegal CFFM 
regarding return on investment, the MI ANG found the applicant 
more than qualified and expressed excitement at the prospect of 
her addition to their office.  While budgetary concerns should 
always be considered, a Staff Judge Advocate is best positioned 
to assess the needs of that particular office to meet mission 
goals, as well as to review potential applicants.

While the denial has created a reduction of the amount of time 
the applicant would serve the MI ANG that fact does not negate 
that she will still provide a quality return on investment.

In support of her request, the applicant provides a counsel’s 
brief, copies of the paralegal interview, a request for 
reconsideration into the paralegal career field, paralegal 
accession disapproval, and letters of recommendation.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:


The applicant interviewed for a paralegal position with the 
Michigan ANG.  

On 13 Aug 12, according to the applicant, her recruiter informed 
her that her application was denied by the ANG Paralegal CFFM 
because of her nearing her High Year Tenure (HYT) and based on 
the analysis of return of cost benefit to the ANG.

On 16 Oct 13, the applicant transferred to the Retired Reserve, 
awaiting pay at age 60, after completing 24 years, 2 months, and 
3 days in the Air Force Reserve.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PP recommends denial.  A1PP states there is no injustice 
on behalf of the ANG Paralegal CFFM and they did not violate ANG 
policy.  

According to AFI 51-802, Section B, paragraph 8, “The ANG 
Paralegal CFFM is the primary point of contact for all 
individuals seeking assignment into TJAGCR as ANG paralegals, 
and for reassignments of paralegal within the ANG.”  Section 
24.3 in Section D, for the same instruction notes, for ANG 
paralegal positions, the approval authority is the ANG Paralegal 
CFFM.  If the application is disapproved, the ANG Paralegal CFFM 
notifies the applicant and returns the application package to 
the unit.

The applicant will reach her HYT in 2016.  Her legal counsel 
stated that four years is sufficient time to recoup its training 
investment in the Air Force; however, non-prior service ANG 
members are required to enlist for six years, not four, in 
accordance with ANGI 36-2002, Enlistment and Reenlistment in the 
Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force.  
Additionally, applying to the paralegal career field is not a 
guaranteed acceptance into the career field.  While the 
applicant may meet the standards noted in AFI 51-802, Management 
of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps Reserve, the ANG Paralegal 
CFFM is the approving authority and unless the applicant can 
substantiate an injustice occurred, the decision cannot be 
overruled.  The CFFM also stated that the JAG Corps would only 
have one year with the applicant as a fully trained 7-level 
paralegal after completing the apprentice course in addition to 
required upgrade training.  Therefore, the return of investment 
would be limited as there would be no option to retain her 
beyond her mandatory separation date, unlike a new accession or 
more junior airman that could choose to stay beyond their 
initial enlistment. 

The complete A1P evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PP recommends denial because of the short period of time 
that the applicant would be able to serve as a paralegal.  They 
note that the applicant’s HYT is 2016 and that she would only 
have one year as a fully trained 7-level paralegal before she 
would have to retire.  This is a specious argument as all prior 
service enlistees need only serve four years.  The applicant 
applied as a paralegal in 2012 at that point she would have been 
able to serve as a paralegal for four years and the Air Force 
does not consider that a poor return on investment.

NGB/A1PP notes that non-prior service airmen have to serve six 
years, but the applicant is a prior service airman not a non-
prior service enlistee.  Potential paralegals who are similarly 
situated to the applicant need only serve four years, the amount 
of time the applicant could have served had she been properly 
considered.  The JAG and Paralegal at the unit level weighed the 
applicant’s abilities and potential for service and advised that 
they wanted her to serve in their unit.

The ANG CFFM denied that request for no good reason.  Another 
paralegal in the same situation was allowed to join the 
paralegal career field.  The CFFM claims that allowing the other 
paralegal to join the career field was the result of a mistake.  
Given that a prior service airman only needs to serve four 
years, this argument is not persuasive.  The applicant is a 
highly successful airman who would provide quality service to 
her new unit immediately.  There appears to be no valid reason 
to deny her that opportunity except her age.  While age 
discrimination is not necessarily improper in the Air Force, in 
this case it contributed to an arbitrary and capricious decision 
that should be overturned.

The counsel’s complete response 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 an error or injustice.  After 
carefully reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we are not persuaded that corrective action 
is warranted.  As such, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility 
(OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of proof that 
she has suffered an error or injustice.  The applicant’s counsel 
is correct that the applicant is a prior service airman and would 
only be required to enlist for four years.  However, as pointed-
out by the Air Force OPR, reassignment into the Paralegal Career 
Field is at the discretion of the Career Field Functional Manager 
and we do not find his/her decision to disapprove the applicant’s 
request to be arbitrary or unjust.  Therefore, in the absence of 
persuasive evidence to substantiate that an injustice occurred or 
that she was denied rights to which she was entitled, 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 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 Docket Number    
BC-2013-01312 in Executive Session on 9 Jan 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Mar 13, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 19 Apr 13, w/atch.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Counsel, dated 10 May 13.





				Panel Chair