RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-03925

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His record be corrected to restore his Active Guard Reserve 
(AGR) career status and it be confirmed by AFRC/A1L.  

2.  He be returned to active duty and allowed to complete 20-
years total active federal military service.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

1.  Based on official documentation from AFRC/A1L and his 
conversation with the A1L representative, he had every reason to 
believe that he had attained career status as an AGR, earning 
the statutory right to complete 20 years total federal active 
military service, and to qualify for an active duty retirement. 
In fact, he relied, to his detriment, on information that the 
Air Force Reserve now claims was erroneous, precluding him from 
making appropriate and critical career decisions that have 
adversely affected him and his family.  He respectfully request 
the Board restore his AGR career status, return him to active 
duty, and allow him to complete 20 years total active federal 
military service.

2.  The AGR Review Board convened on 31 March 2011. The Deputy 
Chief notified him in person the following day at the SAF/AQ IMA 
Conference that his extension into sanctuary was denied.  He did 
say, however, that an extension to his DOS was approved, 
extending it to 31 January 20l3, approximately 36 days short of 
sanctuary.  He immediately notified his supervisor of the board 
results.  His supervisor attempted to intervene, but was 
repeatedly rebuffed by Air Force Reserve leadership.  He was 
finally able to schedule a meeting with the, then, Chief of the 
Air Force Reserve, on or about 18 May 2011 to attempt to have 
the decision reversed.  The discussion lasted some 40 minutes, 
but his supervisor departed without a decision.  Approximately 
three weeks later, he received an amendment to his order 
extending his active duty service to 31 January 2013, which was 
approximately 36 days short of sanctuary.  His supervisor 
assured him that he would to continue to fight this until 
successfully reversed.

7.  In January 2012, he received another ARB worksheet for his 
second and final ARB scheduled for 30 March 2012. In Part 4 of 
the ARB worksheet (Senior Rater Comments), his supervisor was 
again adamant that his order be extended into sanctuary.  His 
supervisor referenced his superior performance and key roles on 
long-term projects currently underway, and planned key roles on 
very high profile future projects, but the request was once 
again denied.  His supervisor vowed to continue the fight, but 
subsequently retired in October 2012, with no further 
resolution.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and copies of AGR Review Board Worksheets and 
documents extracted from his military personnel record.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to copies of documents extracted from his Military 
Personnel Record (MPR), the applicant is a former commissioned 
officer of the Air Force Reserve.  He was progressively promoted 
to the grade of Colonel, (O-6), with an effective date of rank 
and pay grade of 7 February 2006.  During his reserve service, 
the applicant completed a total of 17 years, 10 months and 23 
days of active duty service.  Effective 2 September 2013, the 
applicant was relieved from his, then, current assignment and 
assigned to the Retired Reserve section awaiting pay at age 60 
(27 October 2021).  

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

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  AFRC/A1K recommends denial.  A1K states the applicant's 
initial entry into the AGR Program occurred on 23 July 2008, 
when he started a one-year temporary AGR tour.  On 18 September 
2008, he requested that his current tour be extended an 
additional 60 days adjusting his date of separation (DOS) from 
31 July 2009 to 30 September 2009.  This request was approved 
and an amendment was published accordingly.  In March 2009, the 
applicant applied and was selected for a new AGR position 
effective 1 May 2009.  This was a full time position.  He 
received an order giving him an additional 3 years in AGR status 
and extending his date of separation (DOS) from 30 September 
2009 to 31 May 2012.  

2.  Although an AGR personnel brief dated 8 April 2009, and the 
applicant's AGR Review Board Worksheet for the March 2011 Board 
reflected that he had attained career status, this data was 
incorrect at the time of the AGR Review Board in question.  The 
applicant did not meet any of the criteria outlined in AFI 36-
2l32V2, Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Program, paragraph 3.1.  
While there is no record of dialogue between the applicant and 
the AFRC/A1L staff concerning his career status, the erroneous 
data was identified and corrected prior to the March 2011 ARB.  
Had the data been correct, once brought to the attention of the 
AFRC/AlL staff, the applicant’s record would have been pulled 
from the ARB and orders issued taking him to his 20-year total 
active federal military service (TAFMS) date, which would have 
been 8 March 2015.  This was not the case, as the applicant met 
the March 2011 ARB.  

3.  The March 2011 ARB did not approve the applicant's request 
for a 2-year extension, however, they granted him an 8-month 
extension, thereby, giving him a new DOS of 31 January 2013.  
The applicant's March 2012 ARB worksheet reflected that he did 
not have career status, correcting the previous erroneous data.  
The March 2012 ARB did not approve his 2-year request, keeping 
his DOS as 31 January 2013.  The applicant did not meet the 
criteria to attain or be granted career status in the AGR 
Program.  Once the erroneous data was identified to AFRC/A1L, it 
was corrected.  A system error does not make the applicant 
eligible for AGR status as he claims.  It should be noted that 
at no time was the applicant officially granted Career AGR 
Status.  It is for these reasons AFRC/AlL does not support the 
applicant’s requests to be restored to career status, returned 
to active duty and allowed to complete 20 years total active 
federal military service.

The complete AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of his request, the applicant submits a 
personal statement and reiterates his previous contentions as 
well as expands on his issues of concern regarding the advisory 
opinion.  The applicant states that although AFRC/A1K references 
AFI 36-2l32V2 throughout their advisory opinion, the particular 
version of the AFI was not in effect until 20 March 2012, well 
after the period in question.  He further notes that the second 
paragraph of the advisory opinion states, “in March 2009 he 
applied and was selected for a new AGR position effective 
1 May 2009” clearly making this his second AGR assignment.  
While he has not been able to locate the previous version of the 
AFI due to its subsequent replacement, he remembers that in the 
recent past, selection for a second AGR assignment automatically 
granted career status.  If this were the case during the period 
in question, then his career status would not have been 
erroneous.  He is pleased to learn that AFRC/A1K admits 
culpability in this matter.  The designation of “Career Status” 
on the ARB worksheet and subsequent confirmation by the AFRC 
office chief and subject matter expert caused him to select the 
incorrect action to be considered by the board.  By the time the 
“error” was discovered and “corrected,” a day or two prior to 
the board, he had no way to recover.  Up to that point, he had 
every reason to believe that he had attained career status and 
earned the statutory right to complete 20 years total active 
federal military service and to qualify for an active duty 
retirement.  

The applicant’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 error or injustice.  The evidence 
of record to include the applicant’s rebuttal and his contention 
that he relied on information the Air Force Reserve now claims 
was erroneous, precluded him from making appropriate and 
critical career decisions that have adversely affected him is 
noted.  However, we have seen no evidence indicating that the 
determination he was ineligible for career status was contrary 
to the provisions of the governing policies and regulations.  
Accordingly, in the absence of evidence showing the applicant 
was treated differently from others similarly situated, or that 
his transfer to the Retired Reserve was executed contrary to the 
provisions of the governing policy, we agree with the opinion 
and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, 
we find no compelling 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 10 April 2014, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

		, Panel Chair
		, Member
		, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03925 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 August 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 1 October 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 January 2014.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 February 2014, 
w/atchs.