RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00233

	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) of 19 October 1973 be adjusted to 30 December 1974 so that his Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) can be extended until 1 January 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It is extremely unjust that his TFCSD was adjusted based on a 19‑month educational delay and requires him to separate with only a little over 28 years of service, rather than 30 years of service as allowed at the O-6 level.

The applicant states that immediately after graduating from college, he took a 19-month educational delay, which counts against the 30-year limit, even though he was essentially in a non-pay civilian status at the time.  The educational delay lasted much longer than he intended and did not result in a degree since he changed career paths and self-terminated the educational delay.  In addition, there was an incredibly long delay in his receiving active duty assignment orders.  Since his retired pay is calculated based on points earned, he does not believe changing his TFCSD would affect his retired pay at all, except to the extent that he would be permitted to earn more points and compete for promotion to the grade of O-7.  However, his request is not for any personal financial benefit - he only wants to serve his country for a longer period of time.  Furthermore, O-6s in his career field are in short supply and everyone he knows wants him to stay in the reserves as long as possible.  When he applied for the educational delay, he received no counseling regarding its potential impact on the 30-year cap for an O-6.  

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the grade of colonel in the Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program at XXXXX.

He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Air Force Reserve on 19 May 1973 and entered active duty on 31 December 1974.

He accepted a commission in the Regular Air Force on 11 December 1980.

He was involuntarily discharged from active duty on 19 December 1986 for twice failing regular promotion and voluntarily accepted separation pay and a 3-year service commitment in the Air Force Reserve. He completed 11 years, 11 months, and 19 days of active service, with 1 year, 7 months, and 12 days of prior inactive service.

On 20 December 1986, he was appointed a captain in the Air Force Reserve.

He signed a Reserve oath on 28 May 1987, to correlate with his assignment into the IMA program; however, he was erroneously processed into the Air Force Reserve.

He was promoted to the grade of colonel, Air Force Reserve, effective and with a date of rank of 1 July 1999.

During the processing of this application, it was discovered that the applicant was erroneously processed into the USAFR effective 28 May 1987.  His records were administratively corrected to reflect no break in service and his TFCSD, pay date, and total years service date, were corrected to reflect 19 May 1973.

His MSD is 1 June 2003, based on 30 years of commissioned service.

He will reach age 60 on 9 March 2011.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPA recommends the application be denied. ARPC/DPA states, in part, that the applicant has served continuously in the military in an active or inactive status since his original oath on 19 May 1973.  He signed a Reserve oath on 28 May 1987, to correlate with his IMA assignment; however, he was erroneously processed into the Reserve.  This administrative error was discovered following his request for a correction of his military records and his record was amended to reflect no break in service.  His service has been accurately credited according to the governing Air Force instruction that states that the TFCSD for an officer includes all periods of Federally recognized commissioned service, whether active or nonactive duty.  When there is not a break in commissioned service, the TFCSD will reflect the date of acceptance of original commission.

The ARPC/DPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states that as a Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet in 1973, he received erroneous counseling regarding educational delays and the effect of their timing.  His ROTC detachment highly recommended that he receive an educational delay for graduate school.  He was never told that an educational delay would ultimately mean serving less time in normal duty assignment.  He notes that the intent of the “30-year law” is to allow 30 years of actual service for officers at the O-6 level and counting unpaid training time on educational delay as years of service seems unfair.  Considering the current critical shortage of senior officers, an extension of his MSD by adjusting his TFCSD would be mutually beneficial to both the Air Force and himself.

Although the evaluation states that his pay date should be 19 May 1973, the unsigned, unstamped orders, dated 5 March 2002, indicate that his pay date is 27 October 1973.  In addition, the evaluation is incorrect regarding actual versus theoretical promotion dates.  In the mid-70s, officers normally made first lieutenant in two years and captain in four years; whereas, the evaluation indicates that first lieutenant would be obtained at three years and captain at the five-year point, which is incorrect for that timeframe.  It is also unfair that ARPC now advises that his MSD should be 1 June 2003 instead of the previously stated date because of discovering an error that they made. 

The applicant’s complete responses are at Exhibits E through I.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  The applicant contends that his 19-month educational delay should not be counted towards the 30-year service cap for colonels.  However, the governing instruction states that all periods of Federally recognized commissioned service, whether active or nonactive, are included in the member’s TFCSD.  Furthermore, when there is no break in commissioned service, the TFCSD will reflect the date of acceptance of original commission.  In the applicant’s case, he has continued to serve in an active or inactive military status since his original oath on 19 May 1973.  Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we believe his established MSD is correct.  In addition, since his records have been administratively corrected to reflect that he has had no break in service, we also believe his adjusted TFCSD is correct.  The office of primary responsibility has adequately addressed applicant’s contentions and we agree with their opinion and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Hence, 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 issues 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 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 Docket Number 02‑00233 in Executive Session on 24 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 19 Jan 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPA, dated 17 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jun 02.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jul 02.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Aug 02.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Sep 02.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Oct 02.
	Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 31 Oct 02.