RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00840
		INDEX CODE:  128.14

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  17 Sep 05

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His separation date of Nov 03 be set aside so that he may be reinstated to active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His nonselection for continued active duty service was made under false pretenses, thereby denying him the good faith and fair dealing due to him in equity and under the law.  He believes his separation from active duty was contrary to the best interests of the United States and the Air Force.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement and copies of his limited active duty and separation orders.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

By Special Order AGA-145, dated 13 Oct 00, the applicant, a captain in the Air Force Reserve, was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 13 Nov 00 for a period of three years.  He was released from active duty on 12 Nov 03.

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of major, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Oct 02.  He is credited with 19 years of satisfactory Federal service for retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPAOO recommended denial noting the applicant applied for and was selected for extended active duty (EAD) via the Limited EAD Program for a period of three years from 13 Nov 00 to 12 Nov 03.  As the name implies, the Limited EAD Program is a program which recalls an officer to active duty for a limited period of time to fill a specific active duty position.  Upon completion of the Limited EAD tour, the officer is separated.  Although the applicant submitted an application for permanent recall on 23 Jul 03, he was not selected and was notified of his nonselection on 9 Sep 03.  According to AFPC/DPPAOO, the applicant was not in the active duty sanctuary at the time of his separation from his Limited EAD tour and was not eligible to claim active duty sanctuary.  Additionally, his permanent recall application was evaluated fairly and disapproval was based on the needs of the Air Force.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPAOO evaluation is at Exhibit B.

ARPC/DPP recommended denial regarding the applicant being placed in the Reserve sanctuary because he does not meet the requirements.  According to ARPC/DPP, the governing statute (10 USC 12646) allows officers with 18 or 19, but less than 20 years of satisfactory service to be eligible for Reserve sanctuary if they have been twice-deferred for promotion to the next higher grade or are approaching the expiration of their Mandatory Separation Date (MSD).  The applicant does not currently have an MSD or has not been twice-deferred for promotion.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating although he was brought on active duty under the Limited EAD Program as a rated officer, he was not afforded the opportunity for any rated officer skill refreshment or upgrade training.  Therefore, he should not have been turned down for continued active duty because of a lack of recent rater experience, and he contests any such finding because of its inherent unfairness.  

Applicant’s complete response 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence the applicant was treated differently than others similarly situated, we find no compelling 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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-00840 in Executive Session on 16 Jun 05, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAOO, dated 11 May 05.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 12 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 6 Jun 05.