RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03370
		INDEX CODE:  135.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Retention/Retirement (R/R) Year from 1 September 1995 to 31 August 1996 be changed from an unsatisfactory to satisfactory year of Federal service for retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He is absolutely certain that he performed a UTA in August 1996 that was miscredited for the following month.  The net effect of this is that 1996 was not a creditable year for his retirement since his point total was only 46 (his creditable year ends on 31 August and beings on 1 September).  He was a newly hired Air Reserve Technician (ART) in 1996 and as such was required to be present at all UTAs unless TDY; therefore, this seems to be an obvious error.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of his 1996 pay record from 514 AGS.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of technical sergeant.

On 31 March 1996, the applicant was relieved from the Non-obligated Non-participating Ready Personnel Section and assigned to 514 Aircraft Generation Squadron, McGuire AFB.

Reserve Order DA-01859, dated 4 March 1996 documents the applicant’s Retention/Retirement date as 1 September.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPP recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant performed two inactive duty-training (IDT) days in every successive month from April 1996 to July 1996.  The applicant performed an annual tour from 26 July 1996 through 9 August 1996, for 15 days.  The day-by-day participation shown on the ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summary, AF Form 526, for retirement year ending (RYE) 31 August 1996 is substantiated by the pay record, 31 December 1996.  The point credit summary or the pay record does not show any participation for inactive duty training in the month of August 1996.

The applicant received retirement points for the specific days that were submitted to the Reserve Pay Office.  The pay record and the ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summary for the next R/R year ending 31 August 1997, shows the applicant received paid points for 4 IDT days during September 1996.  Points for participation can only be credited for the dates the inactive duty was performed.  If this application were approved, the following corrective action would be necessary:

	  a.  For RYE 31 August 1996, award 4 non-paid IDT points.

	  b. The applicant’s record would then show 15 active duty points, 20 IDT points, 0 Extension Course Institute points, 15 membership points, 50 total and retirement points and a year of satisfactory federal service.

The evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

EXAMINER’S NOTE:  AFPC/DPP indicates that the applicant was serving as an IMA.  He was not serving as an IMA.  Correction to the advisory is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated that although the Reserve Order DA-01859 does assign him to the 514th AMW as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) he was in fact hired as a full-time Air Reserve Technician (ART).  This is extensively documented in his military records.  He has never served as an IMA.  If nothing else, this proves that serious personnel documentation errors can and do occur.

The ARPC memo states, “The point credit summary or the pay record does not show any participation for inactive duty training in the month of August 1996.”  This is true, but given the fact that he was an ART (not an IMA) and therefore required to be present at all monthly unit training assemblies (UTAs) in order to perform his primary duty of supervising and instructing traditional Reservists, how can this be accurate?  Where is the August drill?  Furthermore, why are two (2) UTAs shown as performed in September 1996, one of which (1-2 September) would have occurred on a Sunday and Monday?  There would be absolutely no reason for him or the 514th AGS to perform such an action; in fact, he would have had to take leave from his civilian position as an ART in order to accomplish this.  He therefore contends that the record of inactive duty training on 1-2 September 1996 is erroneous and that he did in fact participate in the August 1996 drill on 24-25 August.

Applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, a majority of the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopts their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  It appears that the applicant received retirement points for the same days for which he received pay during the contested time period, as indicated on his pay record and AF Form 526, ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summary.  The majority notes that the applicant participated in an annual tour during the July/August 1996 timeframe for which he received pay and points.  The applicant argues that apparently in addition to this annual tour he also participated in inactive duty training in August 1996; however, other than his own uncorroborated assertion, he provides no documentary evidence to support his claim.  Since points for participation can only be awarded for the dates that training was performed, the majority is not persuaded that the records should be corrected.  Should the applicant submit documentation to support his claim, the Board would be willing to review his case for possible reconsideration.  However, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority finds no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting the relief requested.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-03370 in Executive Session on 28 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of the application.  Ms.   voted to grant, but she does not wish to submit a Minority Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 October 2002, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 14 November 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 November 2002.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 December, w/atchs.

					   

AFBCMR 02-03370

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
			FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of 

	I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied.

	Please advise the applicant accordingly.