RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-00079
		INDEX CODE 102.08
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be credited with active duty service towards retirement for time spent in the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). 

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. 
 
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPP advised that time spent in the ROTC is considered noncreditable for points and service unless the member participated in a Simultaneous Membership Program (SMP) on or after 1 Aug 79. Service is only creditable while in the 'Senior ROTC Program' and having a concurrent enlistment. Completion of the ROTC Basic Camp by the applicant only fulfilled the prerequisite for entry into the senior division ROTC program.  He participated in the ROTC prior to 1 Aug 79 and there is no evidence of participation in a SMP or the senior division ROTC program.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts he was in an SMP and did have a concurrent enlistment. He completed two commissioning programs at the same time but was obligated to the Platoon Leaders Class, Officers Candidate School (PLC/OCS) program.

A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPP advises that the time frame for which the applicant is requesting credit of retirement points is before Public Law 104-201 was effective (23 Sep 96) and, most importantly, before the retroactive date (1 Aug 79) stipulated by the amendment. Whether he attended the Army, Navy or Marine Officer’s Training Corps is not significant in this case. The question of whether he attended Junior or Senior ROTC does not matter. Even the lack of documentation of enlistment to a Reserve unit is inconsequential.  The important factor is the date the provision for credit was retroactive (1 Aug 79). The entire rebuttal, previous to his commission date, addresses the time period before the public law provided credit in the SMP. Denial is still recommended.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:  

A complete copy of the additional evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Jun 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.	The applicant was timely filed.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be credited with active duty service for time spent in the ROTC. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. The applicant’s contentions appear moot because the time frame for which he is requesting credit is before 1 Aug 79, the retroactive date stipulated by Public Law 104-201. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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(s) 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 probable 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 24 July 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-00079 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Jan 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPP, dated 28 Feb 02
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Mar 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, 29 Mar 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPP, dated 24 May 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jun 02.