RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01841
		INDEX CODE:  135.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Retention Years Ending (RYE) 23 April 1996 and 22 April 1997 be changed from unsatisfactory to satisfactory years.

_________________________________________________________________

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 letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPP recommended denial.  They indicated that being an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) the applicant is required to earn 12 Active Duty points and 24 Inactive Duty Training points per fiscal year plus fulfill the 50-point Retirement Retention (R/R) year requirement.  From the sample submitted it looks as if the applicant was shown how to use the Air Force form 1951, designed to help IMAs schedule their participation.  Also, as an additional training tool when IMAs are assigned, they are mailed an information package explaining these requirements.  The information that the Base Education & Training Manager states in her letter regarding how she trains each newly assigned IMA is accurate.  The other letter the applicant submitted is from an IMA who claims to have also received misguided information when she entered the IMA program.  They cannot begin to know what type of training IMAs receive when they enter the program; however, since the Base Education & Training Manager has been performing this training, not only to IMAs, but during briefings for 20 years, they believe she has demonstrated to her superiors her expertise.

If the Board rules in favor of the applicant, the Board would have to award the applicant 4 non-paid inactive duty training (IDT) points for Retention Year Ending (RYE) 22 April 1996 and 8 non-paid IDT points for RYE 22 April 1997.  The applicant’s record would then show for RYE 22 April 1996, 7 AD points, 28 IDT points, 0 Extension Course Institute (ECI) points, 15 membership points, 50 total and retirement points and a year of satisfactory service.  For RYE 22 April 1997, the record would show 13 AD points, 22 IDT points, 0 ECI points, 15 membership points, 50 total and retirement points and a year of satisfactory service.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 3 July 2002, a copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.  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 error or an injustice.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, 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 an error or an 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01841 in Executive Session on 28 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 May 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 3 July 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 July 2002.

				
				Panel Chair