RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-01449
		INDEX CODE:  100.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of separation be changed so that he may reach sanctuary.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was twice non-selected for promotion to the grade of major and a mandatory date of separation (DOS) of 31 Aug 04 was established.  The mandatory DOS is 3 months and 8 days short of him reaching 18 years of service, which would place him in sanctuary and allow him to retire with 20 years of service.  Last year he received a $40,000 retention bonus.  If not allowed to continue to serve, his otherwise honorable career will be terminated without receiving any retirement benefits.

In support of his request, applicant provided a personnel data brief and an email communiqué.  His complete submission, with attachments is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant served as an enlisted member from 5 Apr 83 through 23 Jan 90, and from 27 Sep 93 through 20 Jan 94.  He was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 21 Jan 94.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of captain, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 21 Jan 98.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of major for the second time by the Calendar Year 2003B (CY03B), Central Major Selection Board and was not selected for continuation by the CY03B Captain Selective Continuation Board.  As a result, a mandatory DOS of 31 Aug 04 was established. He will reach 18 years of total active military service on 8 Dec 04.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial.  DPPPO states a review of his Officer Selection Record reveals no derogatory information, which would have prevented him from selection for continuation.  Although his commander and career field manager supports continuation, the Secretary of the Air Force did not identify his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) critical to the needs of the Air Force for retention.  The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states in 2003 the Air Force deemed his AFSC critical enough to offer him a $40,000 retention bonus.  He received a $10,000 installment in February 2003, and the second installment in February 2004.  He feels his discharge is unjust because he is being discharged even though he has honored his part of the agreement and has done everything that was expected of him.  Involuntary separation will result in the Air Force taking 50% of the annual installments he received, which will result in a financial stress for his family.  

His career field, Computer, Communications, and Information Systems Management is extremely competitive, time consuming to maintain at the "cutting edge," and expensive.  Since he began receiving the installments he paid for and earned certification in computer networks and is working towards a Cisco Certified Networks Associate.  The Master's degree was masked in the major's board selection folders.  This is an injustice in itself because his degree was totally ignored.  He earned the degree with the needs of the Air Force in mind, not merely to fill a square.  

This type of separation is unjust because it ignores the fact that he has always performed above what is expected of him as evidenced by his award of the Lt General XXXX Communications Award.  Other officers in non-critical career fields are offered continuation several times.  Yet in his case, even though he was offered a retention bonus, he is not offered the opportunity of even a one-time continuation.  

His complete response 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we do not find his contentions sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale expressed by the Air Force.  While we are not without sympathy towards the applicant's circumstances, we do not believe that based on his proximity to reaching sanctuary he has been the victim of an injustice nor do we find evidence that he was treated differently from similarly situated individuals.  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.  We took note of the applicant's contention that the recoupment of his retention bonus would create an unjust financial stress upon his family.  We considered action on that portion of his application; however, inasmuch as the debt resulting from the recoupment action has not yet taken place, we determined that it would be inappropriate to consider taking corrective measures until he is able to show an injustice has actually occurred.  Once a debt has been established, he may resubmit matters to this Board and we would be willing to reconsider taking corrective action.  Otherwise, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-01449 in Executive Session on 30 Jun 04, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

    

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 7 Jun 04.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jun 04.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Jun 04.