RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-02991
		INDEX CODE:  135.03

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP) benefits be reinstated along with her early qualification for Reserve retired pay at age 60.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She completed requirements for reassignment to Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) with authorized RTAP benefits in August 2000 to include early retirement qualification for retired pay at age 60.  On 16 August 2000, her supervisor confirmed, with the Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Reserve liaison, that her position was, indeed, considered surplus due to Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) action.

In December 2000, she received a letter, dated 16 December 2000, from Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) offering her the opportunity to accept one of two positions offered as a result of her position being deleted.  Another option on the letter was to accept RTAP and transfer to the Reserve Retired list should neither position suffice.  She declined both positions and acknowledged there were no positions available within commuting distance that she was eligible for.  Therefore, since she was deemed eligible for RTAP benefits, she attached an application for transfer to the retired reserves.

Six months later, in June 2001, she was notified by AFMC that ARPC had returned her application for the retired reserves without action.  ARPC had determined she was not eligible for RTAP and arranged for her to perform Active Duty Training (ADT) at Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) at Denver, CO, and her inactive duty training (IDT) at DFAS in San Antonio, TX.  On 10 July 2001, she informed AFMC that, based on their letter dated 16 Dec 03 offering her RTAP and early retirement, she had made career-altering decisions.  The Dec 03 letter from AFMC had clearly stated she would no longer have an ongoing obligation with the AF Reserve.  

ARPC concluded that her situation had met the reasonable commuting distance rules in DODI 1215.18, E2.1.1.1 when they reassigned her to DFAS-Denver.  She argues that the ARPC interpretation is inaccurate and applies only to AFRES units that drill monthly and provide meals and lodging for it’s members.  Her situation was more accurately defined in DODI 1215.18, E2.1.1.2 that requires a 50-mile radius at an IDT site where government meals and quarters are not provided.  Since she resides outside the required 50 miles from DFAS-San Antonio and they do not provide meals or lodging, the reasonable commuting distance rule does not apply and she is actually eligible for early qualification of retired pay at age 60 under RTAP guidelines.  She notes the distinction between the two rules may be minor but also observes that ARPC relied on the Instruction to reassign her to DFAS-Denver with the option to perform IDT’s at DFAS-San Antonio.  She respectfully requests the Board review the enclosed documents and give favorable consideration to restoring her option for early retirement eligibility at age 60.

In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided copies of:

	1. RTAP chapter on Involuntary Reassignments.
	2. An email from Air Logistics Command (ALC) to applicant’s Wing stating her surplus status due to base closure.
	3. Letter from HQ AFMC to applicant notifying her of two reassignment opportunities and her eligibility for RTAP.
	4. Letter from HQ AFMC to applicant notifying her of ARPC’s denial of her RTAP eligibility.
	5. Letter from applicant to HQ AFMC notifying her commander of her dilemma.
	6. Copy of Enclosure 2 of DODI 1215.18, Definitions.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is a former IMA, who was assigned to AFMC, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH.  She performed both ADT and IDT at Kelly AFB in San Antonio, TX, approximately 81.5 miles from her home residence in Austin, TX.  On 16 December 2000, the AFMC Program Manager notified her that she was eligible for benefits under RTAP Group III as a result of her position being deleted due to BRAC and she had over 15 years of satisfactory service.  The letter also notified her of two positions for which she was qualified that were within a reasonable commuting distance or close proximity to the location of the unit she had been affiliated with.  On 3 January 2001, she declined both positions stating they were outside her commuting distance.  In accordance with RTAP policy, AFMC then forwarded her RTAP application to ARPC for action.  ARPC checked for available positions she was qualified for.  One was found at DFAS-CO.  On 21 March 2001, ARPC advised the AFMC Program Manager they must offer her the position before her application for RTAP could be processed.  AFMC requested ARPC review Air Force policy once more to ensure compliance with AF policy and the intent of the law.  ARPC did so and reaffirmed their decision to not act on her RTAP application until she had the opportunity to consider the available DFAS-CO position.  ARPC added that AFMC must counsel the applicant to ensure she understood that by declining a reasonable assignment offered to her, she would no longer be eligible for RTAP consideration.  On 10 July 2001, she declined the position and was consequently reassigned to the Non-obligated, Non-participating, Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS) effective 1 November 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPP recommends denial.  DPP states the position offered her from ARPC was located in Denver, CO but that the Program Manager at DFAS-CO agreed to allow her to perform her IDT’s at the DFAS-San Antonio office thereby providing the same commuting distance she endured when assigned to Kelly AFB, TX.  Consequently, not only did the DFAS-San Antonio site meet the definition of reasonable commuting distance in accordance with DODI 1215.18 and Air Force Instruction 2115, it also met the requirement cited in the RTAP guidance, “…if not within reasonable commuting distance, (then) within close proximity to the location of the unit with which the member as been affiliated.”  DPP states the applicant clearly declined a valid assignment offered to her that was both within reasonable commuting distance and within close proximity to the location of the unit with which she had been affiliated.  DPP notes, when her position was identified as surplus by BRAC, she was traveling to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH to perform her ADT’s and traveling 81.5 miles to San Antonio to perform her IDT’s, both from her place of residence in Austin, TX.

DPP’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant states there are several inconsistencies in the ARPC/DPP advisory and she is presenting comments and additional evidence to dispute DPP’s findings.  Paragraph 2a of the DPP advisory states her supervisor advised her of her eligibility for RTAP while, in fact, she, along with other reservists assigned to Kelly AFB, were briefed on their eligibility by the commander of ARPC in a mass briefing.  She based her decision on this briefing that took place in March 1998.

She had originally planned on completing the requirements for RTAP early in the fiscal year.  As a favor to the Wing at Kelly AFB, she agreed to stretch out her 12 remaining IDT’s through August 2000 in order to help her unit with self-inspections.  HQ ARPC initiated new policy restricting the release of reserve members in June 2000.  Had she not accommodated the Wing at Kelly AFB she would have qualified and applied for RTAP by the end of March 2000 - prior to the new policy in June 2000.  From the onset of the BRAC findings, she kept in constant contact with HQ AFMC to identify any job opportunities in her area.  HQ AFMC assured her there were none.  Based on this certainty, and her belief she had nearly completed her Reserve commitment, she accepted a more demanding civilian position that precluded further Reserve service.  She did not realize the door could close on RTAP availability without warning.  Consequently, she feels as if she is being penalized for continuing to support her Wing in good faith.

She notes the DPP advisory states she clearly declined a valid assignment offered her that was both within reasonable commuting distance and within close proximity to the location of the unit with which she had been affiliated.  DPP continues to point out that prior to BRAC she was traveling to Wright-Patterson AFB, OH to perform her ADT.  She states this contention is completely false.  She states she has never been to Wright-Patterson AFB for any reason at any time in her life.  She believes DPP obviously has her records confused with someone else and that the Board in making their final decision should therefore not use DPP’s conclusion.  She addresses DPP’s citation of DODI 1215.18 E2.1.1.1 in determining that DFAS-San Antonio as being within reasonable commuting distance based on mileage alone is suspect as the next paragraph (E2.1.1.2) clarifies the mileage limitation is reduced to a 50 mile radius when an IDT site does not offer government quarters or subsistence - which DFAS-San Antonio does not.  She states DFAS-San Antonio is not even a military installation.  Further, both her ADT’s and IDT’s, prior to BRAC, were always performed at Kelly AFB.  Both of the original positions offered by ARPC were well outside the definition of reasonable commuting distance and/or close proximity as was the position offered by ARPC in lieu of addressing her RTAP application.  Had ARPC offered her a position that allowed her to perform both ADT’s and IDT’s at DFAS-San Antonio, she would have accepted since it would have been very similar to her situation prior to being affected by BRAC.  It is clear to her that ARPC does not know “where” she was performing her ADT’s and IDT’s and therefore does not understand why she would think the two assignments they offered her, DFAS Denver and Wright-Patterson AFB are significantly outside a reasonable commuting distance (1000 and 1,200 miles, respectively).  

Based on the inaccuracies she has identified and the incorrect statement from DPP about her performing duty at Wright-Patterson, and that DPP chooses to selectively apply DODI 1215.18 to make their decision, clearly shows general confusion and mismanagement of her case and career.  She appreciates the Board’s consideration of correcting her military record and respectfully requests the Board direct ARPC/DPP to not transfer her to NNRPS effective 1 November 2001, but rather transfer her to the Retired Reserve, effective 1 November 2001 under RTAP Group III.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After carefully reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the applicant has established that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Appropriate authorities advised her that she was eligible for RTAP benefits and qualified for a reserve retirement at age 60.  Based on this information, she made a career decision to obtain a civilian position that precluded her participation in the military.  Six months later, it was determined that she was not eligible for RTAP and she was offered another assignment, which based on her decision concerning the civilian position, she declined the assignment.  Applicant contends that the assignment was not in reasonable commuting distance and based on the evidence of record, we agree.  Based on the circumstances presented in this case, we believe that the applicant should be entitled to RTAP benefits and eligible for Reserve retired pay at age 60 as she was previously informed.  In view of the above findings, we recommend that her records be corrected as indicated below.
______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

	a.  She was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve, and was transferred to the Air Reserve Personnel Center, Non-Affiliated Reserve Section (NARS), effective 31 October 2001.

	b.  At the time of her transfer to NARS on 31 October 2001, she was eligible to participate in the Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP), and she applied for and was transferred to the Retired Reserve Section, Awaiting Pay, effective 1 November 2001.

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 6 January 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Sep 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 29 Sep 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Oct 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Nov 03, w/atchs.

                                   

 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC

Office Of The Assistant Secretary

BC-2003-02991

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

		a.  She was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve, and was transferred to the Air Reserve Personnel Center, Non-Affiliated Reserve Section (NARS), effective 31 October 2001.

		b.  At the time of her transfer to NARS on 31 October 2001, she was eligible to participate in the Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP), and she applied for and was transferred to the Retired Reserve Section, Awaiting Pay, effective 1 November 2001.