RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01275
		INDEX CODE:  102.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE	

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) be restored to 1 Mar 96, which was his DOR upon retiring from the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not told his DOR would be adjusted upon returning to extended active duty under the Voluntary Retired Airman Recall Program (VREAD).

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of Retired Enlisted Eligibility and Procedures, a copy of AF Form 125, Application for Extended Active Duty with the United States Air Force, a copy of Retired Reserve Statement of Understanding, a copy of Special Order AJ-411, a copy of DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, a copy of AFI 36-2002, Chap 2, 2.2, Voluntary and Involuntary Extended Active Duty for Air Reserve Component Airmen, a copy of a series of correspondence and correspondence on In-System Supplemental Promotion.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant retired from the Regular Air Force on 31 August 1999 after serving a total of twenty-one years, four (4) months and thirty-one days of active duty service in the grade of master sergeant.  The applicant applied to return to EAD under the VREAD Program on 24 April 2002.  On 10 June 2002, he reported to EAD at Scott AFB, Illinois, as a Communications Computer Systems Planning and Implementation Craftsman for a period of 24 months.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial.  The applicant states he was told by the VREAD office his DOR will not be adjusted.  However, we have no record of such conversation.  In fact, the applicant contacted and was briefed by the skill management branch that all retired members returning to EAD require their service dates/DOR adjusted in accordance with established Air Force instructions.  Although the Facts and Questions (FAQ) section did not initially include the adjustment or DOR, it is not the governing instruction for the VREAD program.  Furthermore, it does not contradict the existing Air Force Instruction.  

The DPPAE evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPPWB defers to the recommendation of AFPC/DPPAE.

The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant’s states that prior to his return to active duty he was told that his DOR would not change.  He feels that he received verbal authority from the VREAD office that his DOR would not be adjusted.  Consideration of the documents enclosed reveals proof of published acknowledgement of addressing DOR adjustments only after his return to active duty.

His complete submission, 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  Although the FAQ section did not initially include the adjustment of DOR, it is not the governing instruction for the VREAD program.  Furthermore, evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that the rules of the applicable regulations were inappropriately applied or that he was denied rights to which he was entitled.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 Docket Number BC-2003-01275 in Executive Session on 16 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 Jul 03.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Jul 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E   Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Aug 03, w/atchs.