RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00037
		INDEX CODE:  102.07
		COUNSEL:  NONE	

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His date of rank to the grade of major in the Air Force Reserve (USAFR) be changed from 21 July 2003 to 21 July 2002.

2. He be awarded participation points for fiscal year (FY) 2002.

3. Promotion consideration by special selection board for promotion consideration to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the board held 23 June 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He lost 15 months of service and a promotion opportunity due to the inordinate amount of time it took to process his application for return to duty.  He was able to complete all of his FY2003 points by the end of the FY.  He believes that he would have been eligible to meet the lieutenant colonel promotion board if his DOR is changed as he requested.

In support of his request, the applicant submitted a personal statement and a copy of a letter from ARPC/DPAB.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant initiated AF Form 1288, Application for Ready Reserve Assignment, through his local Reserve recruiter on 16 November 2001.  Application was received on 9 September 2002, however all required documentation for processing the application was not received from the recruiting service and program manager staff until 25 November 2002.  Application was submitted to the Air Staff for Presidential appointment processing on 10 January 2003.  On 27 June 2003, the application was approved by the President and the applicant was appointed to the grade of major in the USAFR on 21 July 2003.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPA recommends denial.  Applicant was appointed appropriately following Presidential authority provided on 27 June 2003.  It is not reasonable to believe or to expect that the individual application would have been processed for appointment by 21 April 2002, in light of his physical not being completed and delivered to the recruiter until 6 February 2002.  This would not have allowed sufficient processing time for staffing an application through Air Force, Department of Defense, and White House channels for a Presidential appointment as a Reserve officer.  Applicant was not eligible for the promotion board held on 23 June 2003.  Eligibility for promotion consideration required an appointment effective date of 21 June 2002, in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-250, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, paragraph 2.4.1, which states an officer must be currently on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL), when the board convenes.  It further states that an officer must have been on the RASL or the active duty (ADL) or a combination of these two lists for 1 year before the board convenes.

The DPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant’s states his first meeting with the recruiter was in early August 2001.  He promised to get information on billets within the next week; the rationale was that he had access to more information than the applicant did.  The information was never forwarded to him and he researched and found a billet in AFMC.  He unsuccessfully tried to set meetings with the recruiter in an effort to complete his application, but that process took almost 3 weeks.  After meeting with him on 16 November 2001 to complete the application, the recruiter took a month and a half to get a signature from AFMC.  He believes this delay cost him 1½ months of retention.  

His application was initiated on 16 November 2001, not 16 January 2001.  He was able to have his physical completed within 2-3 weeks after being told of the requirement.  His application was lost from 4 January 2002 to 9 September 2002. He attempted to track the application down once a month and contacted AFMC several times for updates.  In August 2002, he was informed that the application never made it to ARPC.  The recruiter mailed the package again and it was received on 9 August 2002.  He believes this sequence of events cost him 8 months of retention.  It took the recruiters until 25 November 2002 to forward all documentation to ARPC.  This delay cost him another 2 ½ months of retention.  He believes his application should have been submitted in October 2001.  Add 8 months for processing time, and appointment orders would have been dated in June 2002.  That would have made him eligible to meet the June 2003 Lt Col promotion board.  

In his letter to the board dated 30 December 2003, he requested that his appointment date be backed up 15 months, after reviewing it again, he believes 12 months is the correct amount of time. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

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.  While the applicant contends that he submitted an application for a Ready Reserve Assignment to his recruiter in November 2001, evidence shows that he did not secure a position until January 2002.  Additionally, his required physical was not completed until February 2002.  Therefore, the Board is of the opinion that the applicant was appointed appropriately following Presidential authority on 27 June 2003.  Based on this date of appointment, the applicant did not meet the qualifications that would have made him eligible for promotion consideration.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion 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.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

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-2004-00037 in Executive Session on 30 March 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ARPC/DPA, dated 6 Feb 04.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Feb 04, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair