RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:			DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-00641
		
      					COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His break in service from 1 Oct 11 through 18 Mar 13 be removed 
from his military personnel records.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was erroneously discharged from active duty and should have 
been transferred to the Air Force Reserves upon his separation 
on 30 Sep 11.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves 
(AFRES) in the grade of captain (O-3). 

On 30 Sep 11, the applicant received an honorable discharge with 
a narrative reason for separation of “Non-Selection, Permanent 
Promotion.”  He was credited with 10 years and 4 months of total 
active service.

According to Reserve Order Number PC-00362, dated 8 Apr 13, on 
19 Mar 13, the applicant’s appointment to the AFRES was approved 
by the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF).


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPA recommends approval.  DPA states they found no 
administrative error and the break in service was of no fault of 
the applicant.  Due to a delay in processing of the 14 Jan 
13 scroll at the SECDEF level, the applicant incurred a break in 
service between his Date of Separation (DOS) and appointment 
date into the AFRES.

Current policies do not allow for backdating oaths; however, 
SAF/GCM and the AFBCMR have determined that the AFBCMR has the 
authority to adjust the DOS to prevent a break in service.  The 
appointment date has been determined to be the date SECDEF 
approves the appointment or the date the oath was administered, 
whichever is later.  Therefore, DPA recommends the AFBCMR adjust 
the DOS.

The complete DPA evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 21 Mar 14 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPA recommends approval. DPA reiterates their initial 
recommendation and in addition indicates the applicant contends 
that his Reserve Active Status List (RASL) should reflect 1 Oct 
11; however, the only corrective action that can be accomplished 
is to eliminate the break in service between active duty 
separation and his entry into the AFRES.  The applicant’s break 
in service caused a breach in the written agreement to serve in 
the Ready Reserve, due to a delay by the AFRES to submit the 
applicant for SECDEF level approval.  As a result, the applicant 
was released from active duty and accepted separation pay.  In 
accordance with Title 10, United States Code, Section 1174(e), 
“As a condition of receiving separation pay under this section, 
a person otherwise eligible for that pay shall be required to 
enter into a written agreement with the Secretary concerned to 
serve in the Ready Reserve of a reserve component for a period 
of not less than three years following the person’s discharge or 
release from active duty.”

The complete DPA evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant on 1 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by 
this office.





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 injustice.  While it appears as 
though an error resulted in the applicant being erroneously 
discharged from active duty, instead of being transferred to the 
Air Force Reserve, thereby delaying his eventual appointment as 
a Reserve officer, the Board majority is not convinced the 
recommended corrective action is warranted.  In this respect, 
the Board has been advised that the only avenue of relief 
available to it in these types of cases is to adjust an 
applicant’s date of separation (DOS) as only the Secretary of 
Defense has authority to appoint commissioned officers.  The 
adjustment of the DOS results in constructive service credit for 
the period of time between the officer’s DOS and his/her 
appointment.  The Board is aware this Board has granted this 
form of relief to many applicants similarly situated in previous 
cases.  However, in the instant case, the Board majority 
believes the amount of service credit, almost 15 months, needed 
to eliminate the applicant’s break in service is excessive and 
disproportionate to the harm he has suffered.  In fact, the 
applicant has not indicated in his submission what harm the 
delayed appointment causes.  It appears the applicant and 
ARPC/DPA is seeking to have the Board validate the correction 
already reflected in a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, which 
shows the applicant was transferred to the USAFR, rather than 
discharged.  However, as noted, this Board cannot correct the 
record to show the applicant transferred to the Reserves because 
he was not tendered an appointment as a Reserve officer prior to 
his release from active duty.  While the Board majority 
acknowledges an error has occurred, this Board lacks the 
authority to effect a correction that balances the harm to the 
applicant and considers the interests of the Air Force.  
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board 
majority finds no basis to recommend granting the relief sought 
in this application.


RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or 
injustice and recommends the application be denied.


The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-00641 in Executive Session on, 8 Jul 15, 17 Jul 
15, and 23 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                     , Panel Chair
	                  , Member
	                    , Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.                            
_________voted to correct the records and has submitted a 
minority report which is provided at Exhibit G.  The following 
documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPA, dated 6 Mar 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar 14.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, ARPC/DPAR, dated 21 May 15.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Jun 15.
	Exhibit G.  Minority Report, dated 23 Jul 15.