RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01695
		INDEX CODE:  121.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

30 days of leave be restored to his leave account.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

From the period of July 2000 through the spring of 2001, he was not allowed to take leave due to the policy of the wing leadership.  He was informed by the vice wing commander that squadron commanders do not take leave.  His records indicate that he lost only 10 days of leave.  When he asked about the handling of excess leave in FY00 he was told by the comptroller that he should burn 20 days of leave so that the wing commander would not look bad.  Based on that advice, he took 20 days of leave but worked every day of the leave period with the exception of one day.  He took that morning off and then went to work to meet mission requirements.  The policy at the wing was not equally applied across the wing.  The wing commander, other commanders and his staff took leave on a regular basis.  He does not believe that the reason for the discrimination was because he was the only Asian American commander, but he certainly cannot rule that option out.  Upon his departure, the vice wing commander told the applicant that he did not want to hire him.  After the retirement of the former vice wing commander, he was authorized four periods of leave during the rest of his tenure at Malmstrom AFB.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, copies of his online Leave and Earnings Statements (LES), and his September 2000 calendar.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 23 Jan 86.  He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 29 Jul 83.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 May 02.

The applicant entered FY00 with 60 days of leave in his account.  By September 2000 he had earned 27.5 days and was projected to lose 30 days if he did not take leave prior to 1 Oct 00.  He took 20 days of leave in September 2000 and lost 10 days at the end of the FY.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSFM reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial.  DPSFM states that he reported for command on 1 Jul 00.  Prior to that he was an Assistant Professor of Aerospace Studies at the University of Texas at Austin.  There are many opportunities for personnel assigned to ROTC detachments to take leave (e.g. Christmas, spring break, and summer).  He has not explained what prevented him from taking leave for the first 9 months of FY00; nor has he explained what caused him to enter FY00 with such a high leave balance.  It is unreasonable for him to expect that he could report for a new job and take leave for 30 of the first 90 days.

He stated that he did take 20 days of leave but that he was at work during those 20 days; however, he did not provide any proof that he was required to be at work during this leave period nor did he provide proof that he was not allowed to take leave while he was a squadron commander.  The DPSFM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states when he departed Austin TX he had plans to take leave while enroute but he received a call from the base leadership at Malmstrom AFB and was asked not to take leave and report directly to Malmstrom AFB so that his predecessor could take leave.  His position at the University of Texas allowed little time to take leave except for during the summer, which was his plan until he arrived at Malmstrom AFB.  As commandant of cadets he had a number of responsibilities outside the academic year in preparation of programs designed for cadets outside the normal school term.  It is important to note that it is not out of the ordinary for Air Force members to plan 3 to 4 weeks of leave between permanent change of station (PCS) moves.  Applicant reiterates that he did take 20 days of leave and states that the previously attached schedule clearly indicates a normal work schedule during the leave period.  The leave slip was signed by his supervisor with the understanding and knowledge that he was only taking leave as asked by the comptroller so that the wing commander would not look bad.  The calendar he provided in addition to the note that was attached to his leave form when forwarded for signature, demonstrates that his supervisor was fully aware that he worked during the leave period.  

He was told verbally that he was not to take leave.  He was the only Asian American squadron commander.  Malmstrom AFB has a history of bias against Asian Americans and he believes that the leave policy was applied to him based on that bias.  Prior to 1 Oct 01, he raised the issue with the former support group commander.  He did not elect to file for correction of his records until after he left Malmstrom AFB because he feared that the wing commander would reprise against him.

As a commander he ensured that nobody in his squadron lost leave.  He has lost leave previously and has not asked for any waivers or corrections.  He understands that the mission comes first and sometimes leave is lost to that mission.  However, in this case that is not why he lost leave.  He lost leave because it was directed, ordered, and with a purpose.  

The applicant's complete submission 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 applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find his uncorroborated assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 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 02-1695 in Executive Session on 5 Sep 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 02.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPFSM, dated 1 Jul 02.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Jul 02.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair