RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02279
		
	 	COUNSEL:  NONE

	 	HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retired pay multiplier be changed from 60% to 65%.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He reenlisted for a period of six years with the intent to retire upon completion of 26 years of service.  However, his High Year of Tenure (HYT) was later changed from a maximum of 26 years of service to a maximum of 24 years of service, and he was forced to separate upon completion of 24 years of service.  As such, he should receive two years active duty credit and his retired pay multiplier should be changed from 60% to 65%.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 16 October 1987, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of six years, which established his Date of Separation (DOS) as 15 October 1993.

On 11 May 1990, the Air Force changed enlisted HYT.  Based on the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) of 18 October 1967, his HYT was established as October 1991 (24 years of service).

On 15 April 1991, the applicant applied for voluntary retirement effective 1 November 1991.

Effective 31 October 1991, the applicant was relieved from active duty and retired effective 1 November 1991 in the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with 24 years and 13 days of active service for retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that while the applicant was impacted monetarily by his mandatory separation date and subsequent retirement, he was treated no differently than the other master sergeants that were affected by the change in the High Year of Tenure (HYT) program (i.e., 24 years, rather than 26 years).  The HYT implementation message specifically states that erroneous reenlistment will not permit airmen to remain on active duty beyond their HYT.

The AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 30 August 2002 for review and comment within 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 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 relief should be granted.  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 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.

_________________________________________________________________

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 02-02279 in Executive Session on 12 November 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jul 02, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 20 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 02.