RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03160
		INDEX CODE:  136.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be provided sanctuary zone protection for the purpose of qualifying for a Regular Air Force active duty retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not allowed to claim sanctuary zone protection.  When she requested assistance, she was discouraged and verbally reprimanded.  No office in the military personnel flight (MPF) would assist her with her claim when she was performing an active duty for support (ADS) special tour.  While she was on manday special tours, she tried to claim sanctuary zone protection and her orders were amended illegally.

In support of her request, the applicant provided an expanded statement, a supportive statement, copies of AF Forms 938, Authorization for Active Duty Training/Active Duty Tour, AF Forms 973, Request and Authorization for Change of Administrative Orders, her point credit summary, and service history.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Available documentation indicates that the applicant served on active duty for 19 years, 4 months, and 21 days.  She separated from active duty in 1992 and received a Special Separation Benefit (SSB) payment of approximately $62,000.  

On 12 Feb 94, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of technical sergeant for a period of three (3) years.

In Apr 94, the applicant was ordered to active duty on three separate occasions (4-8 Apr 94, 11-15 Apr 94, and 18-22 Apr 94).  Her orders initially stated that she had been placed on ADS manday tours.  On 3 May 94, her orders were amended to change her status from ADS to active duty for training (ADT) for the three periods she had served on active duty.

By Reserve Order CA-005741, dated 15 Feb 97, the applicant was relieved from her assignment and honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve, effective 11 Feb 97.  As of retirement year ending (RYE) 10 Sep 96, she was credited with 21 years, 4 months, and 21 days of satisfactory Federal service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPX recommended denial indicating that the available evidence did not support the applicant's version of events, and that her assertions were not credible.  Her belief that a sanctuary zone claim would have entitled her to retire from the active duty Air Force was legally incorrect because it was highly speculative, conjectural, and uncertain.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating that she had 19 plus years and was illegally removed from ADS orders.  Not only was she removed from ADS orders, the orders were illegally changed from ADS to ADT orders.  No one would explain to her what was meant by "sanctuary.".  When she found out that she was in the sanctuary zone, she tried to claim "sanctuary" and has been trying ever since with no assistance.  She believes she has submitted documentation which supports her claim.  Regarding repayment of her SSB, the applicant indicated that it should not be a factor for disapproval of her request.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ USAF/JAG recommended denial, indicating that to receive the benefits of the sanctuary zone, the applicant must have requested sanctuary protection while on active duty in a non-training status.  Even accepting for arguments sake that the three tours she served in Apr 94 were truly ADS tours and would have placed her in a non-ADT status, there was no evidence to support the applicant’s position that she definitively requested to remain on active duty during that time.  The letter she submitted in support of her appeal did not specify at what point she requested sanctuary protection.  It may well be true that at some time she asked to remain on active duty, but the record provided no confirmation that she did so at the appropriate time.  In fact, the former personnel superintendent of the Consolidated Base Personnel Office (433rd Air Wing) contended that the applicant did not ask to remain on active duty while she was on her active duty tour.  In short, there was no evidence other than the applicant’s statement to support her contentions.

In HQ USAF/JAG's view, the applicant's claim of being entitled to retire from the active duty Air Force was speculative at best.  In 1994, she had recently separated from active duty after receiving nearly $62,000.  It is certainly debatable whether the Secretary of the Air Force would have allowed her to remain on active duty after that amount of money had just been expended when she voluntarily separated from active duty less than two years before.  In HQ USAF/JAG's opinion, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that she met the criteria to be awarded sanctuary protection.  

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAG evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating, in part, that she would not succumb to the constant attempt to discredit her character or defame her integrity.  She would not be swayed from processing her sanctuary package.  Nor will she continue this battle of wits with Judge Advocate General (JAG) officials.  At this point, the burden is placed on the Air Force to try to prove whose integrity the Air Force will defame.  Again with respect to all involved, she requested sanctuary protection from the initial three sets of active duty orders and was denied.

Applicant's complete response is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation presented in support of her appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  Therefore, in the absence of evidence which shows to our satisfaction that the applicant met the criteria to be awarded sanctuary protection, we adopt the Air Force rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of establishing that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-03160 in Executive Session on 3 Sep 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/DPX, dated 15 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Mar 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 24 Mar 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 2 May 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 May 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Jun 03.