RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-01130
		INDEX CODE 110.02
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The reason for his 1993 discharge be changed from “involuntary” to “voluntary.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not aware of the long-term consequences of allowing himself to remain on active duty after the first nonselection for major. In the drawdown era, a voluntary separation restricted and penalized individuals from returning as civil servants. He essentially let the clock run out because he understood that in this environment the probability of promotion at the second promotion board was really non-existent for a nonrated officer. After the second nonselection, he could process out without any restrictions regarding civil service employment. Years later, all of the penalties and restrictions were lifted. Had he known a twice nonselect for promotion and subsequent involuntary separation would have precluded him from ever becoming an officer in the military again, including the National Guard, he would never have waited for the second nonselect. He believes the Guard would accept him as an officer.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant and entered active duty on 6 Jun 80. He was promoted to the grade of captain with a date of rank (DOR) of 6 Jun 84. During the period in question, he was the program manager for integrated product development at Hanscom AFB, MA.

The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the Calendar Year 1991A (CY91A) and CY92C promotion boards. 

He was given a mandatory date of separation (DOS) of 31 Aug 93, in accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 632, and AFR 36-12, Chapter 3, Involuntary Separation. The law required separation no later than the first day of the seventh calendar month beginning after the month in which the President approved the report of the board that considered him for the second time.

The applicant was honorably and involuntarily discharged on 31 Aug 93, for two nonselections, after 13 years, 5 months, and 22 days of active service. According to his DD Form 214, he received a lump sum of $52,695.30 in separation pay.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRS asserts the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The reason for the applicant’s discharge was based on his nonselection and the law. If his separation had been considered a “voluntary” separation, he would not have received $52,695.30 separation pay. He did not identify any errors or injustices and his case should be denied.

A complete copy of the evaluation 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 13 Feb 04 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 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 the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded his involuntary discharge should be changed to “voluntary.” The 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. We therefore adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not sustained 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 21 April 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01130 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Feb 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.

                                   Chair