RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  02-02045
		INDEX CODE 110.02
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 reflect a narrative reason of “Completion of Required Active Service” rather than “Non-Selection, Permanent Promotion,” and award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM).

_________________________________________________________________

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 applicant was considered but not selected for promotion for major for the second time in Sep 00. He was given a mandatory date of separation of 30 Jun 01 in accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 632. He was offered selective continuation through 18 years of service but declined. He was honorably discharged in the grade of captain on 30 Jun 01 with 11 years, 5 months and 22 years of active service and received approximately $57,400 in separation pay. The narrative reason for discharge was “Non-Selection, Permanent Promotion.”

On 12 Jul 02, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA notified the applicant that his DD Form 214 had been administratively corrected to reflect receipt of the MSM (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ APFC/DPPRS notes that, although the applicant did not have a remaining commitment, his reason for separation was based on his nonselection and law, which requires separation no later than the last day of the seventh month following board approval by the Assistant Secretary of Defense. This takes precedence over any other reason for separation/retirement. In retrospect, if the applicant had been separated for “completion of required active service” as he requests, his separation would have been considered voluntary and he would not have received $57,400 in separation pay. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 26 Jul 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. We note that the applicant’s request to have his DD Form 214 reflect award of the MSM was administratively accomplished. Therefore, the only issue remaining for our consideration pertains to his request for a different narrative reason. In accordance with statute, the applicant was given a mandatory date of separation as a result of his two nonselections. He was offered selective continuation, which would have gotten him to the 18-year point known as the retirement sanctuary and undoubtedly he would have been allowed to serve until he became retirement eligible. However, he declined. The applicant should not perceive his nonselections as a negative or a hindrance in civilian life.  The extremely competitive nature of the selection process results in many fine officers not being promoted. Further, if he had been separated for the requested narrative reason, his separation would have been considered voluntary and he would not have received over $57,000 in separation pay. 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. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 3 October 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02045 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149s (2), dated 18 Jun 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA, dated 12 Jul 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 19 Jul 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.

                                   Panel Chair