RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02836

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her records be corrected to change her mandatory separation 
date (MSD) from 31 Dec 12 to 31 Dec 15 to allow retirement 
eligibility. 

2.  She be reinstated into her Individual Mobilization Augmentee 
(IMA) position.

3.  She be granted constructive service credit from the date of 
her 31 Dec 12 discharge. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was unjustly denied a MSD extension after performing almost 
18 years reserve service.  She received notification of 
disapproval for her MSD extension only two months prior to 
entering sanctuary despite being continually led to believe that 
she would be able to serve until she attained sufficient service 
to qualify for retirement.  Health professions officers are 
authorized to be retained until age 68; however, she was 
involuntarily separated from active status when she was only 64, 
two months prior to entering sanctuary, when she would have been 
automatically retained until she qualified for retirement.  She 
requested a MSD waiver to reach retirement eligibility, but her 
request was denied even though there is a critical need for her 
specialty.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate that she 
commenced her service in the Air Force Reserve on 3 May 95.  

On 8 May 07, ARPC/DPPRS notified the applicant that her MSD was 
recomputed and changed from 31 Dec 08 to 31 Dec 10 due to a 
change to Title 10, United States Code, Section 14509, as 
implemented by the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA).  

On 4 Aug 10, by action of the Secretary of the Air Force 
(SecAF), the applicant’s request for an extension of her 
31 Dec 10 MSD to 31 Dec 16 (age 68) was disapproved; however, 
her retention in active status until 31 Dec 12 (age 64) was 
approved.

On 12 Mar 12, the applicant requested retention in active status 
until reaching age 68 (31 Dec 16).
  

On 31 Dec 12, the applicant’s MSD expired.

On 13 Mar 13, AFRC/CC recommended disapproval of the applicant’s 
request, citing over-manning (140 percent) in the applicant’s 
specialty.

On 20 Mar 13, the SAFPC disapproved the applicant’s request for 
retention until age 68.  

On 24 May 13, by direction of the President, the applicant was 
honorably discharged, effective 31 Dec 12.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, and 
E.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPTT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or an injustice.  The applicant requested an extension 
to her MSD to allow her the opportunity to complete 20 years of 
satisfactory service for retirement.  The SecAF disapproved her 
request and she was discharged on 31 Dec 2012.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPTT evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

AFRC/A1K recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice.  The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel 
Council (SAFPC) acts as SecAF delegated authority to make 
decisions on MSD extension requests.  As such, the command 
supports the decision of SAFPC and its decision precludes 
reinstatement and credit for retirement as requested by the 
applicant.  

A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit D.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice.  The applicant is a Reserve Clinical Social 
Worker who was age 64 and had 17 years, 7 months, and 28 days of 
satisfactory service when SAFPC reviewed her request for an MSD 
extension on 20 Mar 13.  On 12 Mar 12, the applicant submitted a 
request for a two-year MSD extension under Title 10, USC, 
Section 14703.  Her reason for requesting this waiver was to 
retire with twenty years of service.  While her unit of 
assignment recommended approval, the Resource Management Group 
(RMG) Program Manager, RMG commander, and Commander, Air Force 
Reserve Command (AFRC) recommended disapproval indicating that 
the manning in the applicant’s career field did not support her 
retention.  Specifically, the AFRC Commander indicated there is 
no operational requirement for approval of the applicant’s 
request.  The AFRC-wide clinical social worker (42S3/4) manning 
was 140 percent (22 authorized, 29 assigned).  Clinical social 
worker (42S3/4) was not listed as a Reserve Component Wartime 
Health Care Specialty with critical shortages.  SAFPC recognized 
the applicant had more than 17 years of satisfactory service 
toward retirement; however, they cited over-manning in the 
career field and recommendations for disapproval from the 
command as their rationale for the decision.  While it is 
unfortunate the applicant will not receive a 20-year Reserve 
retirement, the manning in her career field did not support her 
retention beyond her MSD.

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit E.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates that an additional two years would 
allow her the opportunity to retire with 20 years of service.  
She is well supported by military members that worked for her 
and with her, attesting to her exemplary service and meeting the 
needs of the Air Force Mental Health community.  However, 
individuals that do not know her made the decision of not 
allowing the extension of her MSD.  Upon her initial 
commissioning there was no waiver requirement; however, the 
rules were apparently changed and she was asked to submit a 
request for an age waiver.  She was not allowed to extend her 
MSD for the third time due to manning; however, it was approved 
the first time.  She does not understand how mental health 
cannot be considered critical in this time when men and women 
are seeking services in the record numbers due to the effects of 
wartime commitments.  She argues that she is suffering from 
retribution as she was considered a “whistle blower” 
(Exhibit H).  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.  

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an injustice.  The applicant argues 
that she was consistently told that she would be able to serve 
long enough to qualify for a reserve retirement and that the 
denial of her mandatory separation date extension, so close to 
qualifying for retention under the provisions of sanctuary, 
renders her the victim of an injustice.  After a thorough review 
of the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete 
submission, we believe it is in the interest of justice to 
recommend corrective action.  While there is no evidence the 
denial of the applicant’s mandatory separation date (MSD) 
extension was inappropriate to the circumstances, arbitrary or 
capricious, or represented an abuse of discretionary authority, 
we believe the inordinate delay in the denial of the applicant’s 
MSD extension, resulting in her being notified several months 
after her MSD had expired, and just two months prior to 
qualifying for retention beyond her MSD, renders her the victim 
of an injustice.  In this respect, we note the applicant timely 
requested an extension of her 31 Dec 12 MSD in Mar 12; however, 
it appears that, for whatever reason, an entire year elapsed 
before the applicant’s request was processed by SAFPC, resulting 
in her being notified of the denial five months after her MSD 
expired and just two months prior to her attaining 18 years of 
reserve service when she would have qualified for automatic 
retention until qualifying for a reserve retirement.  In our 
view, and in light of the unique circumstances at play in this 
particular case, we believe the inordinate delay on the part of 
the Air Force in notifying the applicant of its decision, taken 
together with the resultant timing of the response to the 
applicant, served to create the expectation that the applicant’s 
request would ultimately be approved.  Therefore, we believe it 
would be in the interest of justice to recommend her records be 
corrected to reflect that competent authority approved her 
request for an MSD extension until 3 May 15 when she would have 
been eligible for reserve retirement and that she was not 
discharged on 31 Dec 12, but continued to serve as an Individual 
Mobilization Augmentee (IMA).  Additionally, we find it 
appropriate to credit her with the pay and points required to 
ensure the period 31 Dec 12 through the date of this decision is 
satisfactory service for retirement purposes.  In arriving at 
the appropriate amount of credit to be awarded, we calculated 
the average of her participation during the five years preceding 
her original MSD.  While we note the applicant is requesting 
that her records be corrected to reflect a new MSD of 31 Dec 16, 
in our view, the corrections noted above constitute proper and 
fitting relief.  With this recommendation, the applicant is free 
to continue to serve as an IMA, provided she is otherwise 
qualified, so she can attain the requisite satisfactory service 
required to ensure that the period ending 3 May 15 is 
satisfactory service.  Therefore, to preclude any further 
injustice to the applicant, we recommend her records be 
corrected to the extent indicated below.  

4.  We note that in her rebuttal response, the applicant 
indicates that she was known as a “whistleblower,” the 
implication being the denial of her MSD extension renders her 
the victim of reprisal in violation of the Whistleblower 
Protection Act (10 USC 1034).  However, after a thorough review 
of the evidence of record, notwithstanding our determination 
above of a probable injustice, we have determined the applicant 
has not established that the denial of her MSD extension was in 
any way motivated by retaliation for making protected 
communications.  In reaching this determination, we note that 
other than her own uncorroborated assertions, she has submitted 
no evidence that she initiated a protected communication or of 
the existence of a reprisal motive.  Therefore, absent evidence 
to the contrary, we find no basis exists upon which to recommend 
granting any relief other than that indicated below.

5.  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 issues involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD REOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

		a.  On 30 Dec 12, competent authority approved her request 
for an extension of her mandatory separation date (MSD) until 
3 May 15.

		b.  On 31 Dec 12, she was not discharged from all 
appointments, but continued to serve as a member of the Air 
Force Reserve.

		c.  She was awarded 102 paid active duty (AD) points, 
21 paid inactive duty training (IDT) points, and 15 membership 
points for the retention/retirement (R/R) year 3 May 12 through 
2 May 13, resulting in 138 total retirement points and one year 
of satisfactory Federal service for retirement, instead of 58 AD 
points, 24 IDT points, 15 membership points.  

		d.  She was awarded 102 paid AD points, 21 paid IDT points, 
and 15 membership points for the R/R year 3 May 13 through 2 May 
14, resulting in 138 total retirement points and one year of 
satisfactory Federal service for retirement.

________________________________________________________________



The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-02836 in Executive Session on 18 Mar 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPTT, dated 29 Aug 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 11 Sep 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 22 Oct 13.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Oct 13.
	Exhibit G.  E-mail, AFBCMR, dated 29 Oct 13.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Nov 13.