RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-01768

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her discharge be changed to a retirement.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was wrongly discharged.  She was informed by her unit the separations/retirement department that she qualified for early retirement, so she elected to retire.  Her unit then informed her she was retired, held a retirement party, and presented her a retirement certificate.  One year later she received a notice stating she had been separated for not meeting the time at the duty station requirement.  She is now an 80 percent disabled Veteran and would not be able to complete the additional time required to qualify for retirement.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTT recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Air Force until 31 May 92, when she accepted a voluntary early release and a Special Separation Bonus (SSB) in the amount of $32,466.94.  On 21 Oct 94, she enlisted in the California (CA) ANG, serving until 13 May 98.  Special Order (SO) AD-370, dated 15 May 97, in her record states she would be transferred from the ANG to the USAFR on 22 Oct 97 as she had applied for transfer to the USAF Retired List.  However, she continued to participate in the ANG unit.  On 3 May 98, she signed another extension to her enlistment to extend through 31 May 01.  The CA ANG published SO AY-30 on 15 Oct 98, discharging the applicant on 16 Oct 98 and transferring her to the USAFR effective 17 Oct 98.  The corresponding NGB Form 22, National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service, cites the reason for her separation as “resignation.”  At the time of her discharge on 31 May 01, she had a total of 15 years, 2 months, and 5 days of satisfactory service; however, only three of those years were satisfactory years in a Reserve Component.  Her first 12 years, 2 months, and 5 days were in the Regular Air Force.  In accordance with Title 10, U.S.C. §12731, until 25 Apr 05, in order to qualify for an early retirement the last six years of satisfactory service had to be in a Reserve component for all members.  Even though the applicant’s records do not contain a revocation of SO AD-370, dated 15 May 97, her record clearly shows she continued to participate in the CA ANG until 1998 when she transferred to the USAFR due to her resignation.  Her records do not contain any documentation to show that she was medically disqualified or met the basic requirements for Reserve Transition Assistance Program.  Since the applicant only served three of the last six years of satisfactory service required for retirement, she would not have met the qualifications for the provisions of Title 10, U.S.C. §12731a or 12731b.  Further, the Certificate of Retirement she supplied showing a retirement date               of 22 Oct 97 is not an official retirement certificate issued by the USAFR.  In addition, the SSB payment she accepted when she left active duty would have to be repaid in full if she were to become eligible and draw Reserve retired pay.  

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Dec 12 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

________________________________________________________________

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 in judging the merits of the case; however, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While the Board notes the applicant’s contention that she was formally retired by her unit, the Certificate of Retirement submitted as documentary evidence is not an official Air Force Retirement Certificate and reflects her retirement month as Oct 97.  However, on 3 May 98, after her alleged retirement, the applicant signed an NGB Form 66, Extension of Enlistment in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force, voluntarily reenlisting through 13 May 01.  In addition, in Oct 97 she did not qualify for retirement because she had not served in the Air Force Reserve for the minimum period of six years required by Title 10, U.S.C, §12731 in order to obtain eligibility for retirement.  Therefore, the Board does not believe the applicant provided sufficient documentation to establish that she was the victim on an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief. 

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2013-01768 in Executive Session on 6 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Apr 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPTT, dated 7 Jun 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 13.




                                   
                                   Panel