RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-02341
		INDEX CODE 0202341
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No
  
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records reflect two years of inactive Reserve service performed after her first enlistment (2 Sep 75 - 31 Aug 79).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When she separated after her first enlistment in 1979, she was told she was not completely released from the Air Force and she needed to keep her uniforms because she was obligated to the Air Force for two more years in the inactive Reserves.  Documentation for the inactive Reserve service, which she incurred/served following her first enlistment, is now missing. However, two years of inactive military service are indicated on the DD Form 4 for her second enlistment, which started on 28 Mar 83. Some type of source document which reflected her prior military service (active and inactive) had to have existed at the time of her second enlistment; otherwise, the individual completing the DD Form 4 could not have included it in her reenlistment document. She believes she is entitled to credit for a two-year military service obligation (MSO) as a result of two years spent in the inactive Reserves.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 8 Apr 75, the applicant signed a DD Form 4, Enlistment Contract, which committed her to six years in the Air Force Reserve.

On 2 Sep 75, she entered active duty, signing another DD Form 4 committing her to four years on active duty. On 31 Aug 79, she was honorably discharged from active duty for expiration of term 
of service with four years of active service. When a member is transferred to the Reserves, the DD Form 214 will reflect “USAFR” in Block 9, Command to Which Transferred, and “Release from Active Duty” in Block 25, Type of Separation. Blocks 9 and 25 on the applicant’s DD Form 214 reflect “Not Applicable” and “Discharge,” respectively.  

According to HQ AFPC/JA, at the time of this enlistment, female enlistees did not incur an MSO under the law in existence at that time (Title 10, USC, Section 651). The law was later changed and after 1 Feb 78, female officers and enlisted incurred a six-year MSO upon entering active duty. This change did not apply to the applicant.

On 28 Mar 83, the applicant reenlisted in the Air Force. The DD Form 4 she signed at that time credited her with two years of inactive military service. The applicant remained on continuous active duty until her retirement in Jan 03.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/JA believes that when the applicant signed the new DD Form 4 contract in Sep 75, which obligated her to four years of active service, it superceded the previous DD Form 4 signed in Apr 75 and essentially released her from her six-year contract with the Air Force Reserve. Accordingly, when she was discharged four years later, she incurred no MSO beyond her four years of active duty service. Assuming the applicant’s memory of her 1979 separation briefing is correct, the person giving the briefing was merely mistaken. This purported error may have occurred as a result of the change in the law which occurred in 1978, after her entry into active duty. Under that change, a six-year MSO would have been authorized for females who were enlisting in the Air Force by the time the applicant separated in 1979 but not for those, like the applicant, who enlisted prior to 1978.  The 1983 DD Form 4 erroneously reflected a credit for two years of inactive military service that she never served. This document, unlike the DD Form 214, is not considered a source document that can be relied upon to reflect the applicant’s prior service. The applicant has not provided, nor does the Personnel Center have in its possession, any authoritative source document that shows she served these two years of inactive service. They conclude only one error occurred in this case. That is, the 1983 DD Form 4 should not have reflected two years served in the inactive Reserve. Her DD Form 214 does not show a transfer to the Reserves, and the law authorizing females to incur a six-year MSO was not effective until 1978. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Mar 03 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 application was timely filed.

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 the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that her records should reflect two years of inactive Reserve service performed after her first enlistment. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. We therefore 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 conclude this appeal should be denied.  

_________________________________________________________________

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 17 April 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-02341 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jul 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 28 Feb 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.