RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01102
		INDEX CODE:  131.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be offered 29 days of continuation by the CY03B Captain Selective Continuation Board.   

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His nonselection for continuation by the CY03 Captain Selective Continuation Board has caused him to be involuntarily separated effective 31 August 2004.  This separation date is less than one month shy of sanctuary or of having 18 years of total active Federal military service.  He has dedicated his entire life to diligently and faithfully serve his country for the past 17 years.  He participated in Desert Shield/Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.  He would consider it to be an injustice to not have the opportunity to retire with 20 years of service.  

The applicant provides no supporting documentation.  The applicant’s submission is at Exhibit A. 
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date was established as 22 September 1986 based on eight years of prior enlisted service.  Applicant’s Total Active Federal Commission Service date is 15 July 1994 and he is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain, with a date of rank of 28 June 1998.  As of 10 May 2004, the PDS reflects the applicant has two nonselections for promotion.  

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied.  DPPPO states that the applicant’s Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 21R did not meet the eligibility criteria established for continuation at the CY03B Captain Selective Continuation Board.  The Secretary of the Air Force did not identify his AFSC as critical to the needs of the Air Force for retention.  The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant submits a supporting letter from his commander who indicates he considers the applicant’s service to be invaluable as an instructor for the Air Force’s Logistics Training Center.  The commander advises that his squadron is currently undermanned and by losing the applicant it will provide him with an operational deficiency in implementing Air Force training.  The applicant’s submission 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 an injustice.  The applicant believes he is the victim of an injustice based on his proximity to sanctuary.  However, we do not find this contention sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale expressed by the Air Force.  We find no evidence showing that the applicant’s established date of separation is contrary to governing policies.  While we are not unsympathetic to the applicant’s circumstances, in the absence of evidence indicating he was treated differently than others who are similarly situated, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the victim of an injustice.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably considered. 

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 probable 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 AFBCMR Docket Number 04-01102 in Executive Session on 8 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered.

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Mar 04.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Apr 04.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Apr 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 May 04 w/atch.