RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01063
					COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His break in service between 2 Jul 12 and 28 Nov 12 be removed.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records do not reflect his time spent in the Individual Ready 
Reserve (IRR).  

After leaving active duty he received notification that he was 
transferred to the IRR; therefore, he should not have a break in 
service.  

When he requested transfer to the Georgia Air National Guard 
(GAANG), a review of his record revealed that he was not in the 
IRR.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 7 Jun 01, the applicant entered active duty in the Regular Air 
Force.  On 9 Aug 11, the applicant applied for voluntary 
separation and acknowledged that he did not want an AFR 
commission.

On 1 Jul 12, the applicant resigned his commission and was 
discharged with a narrative reason for separation of completion of 
required active service.  

On 29 Nov 12, the applicant was appointed as a lieutenant colonel 
in the GAANG.  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPA recommends denial indicating the applicant was never in 
the IRR and was not a member of the AFR in any capacity from 2 Jul 
12 until 28 Nov 12.  The recruiter's remarks on the AFRISS-R 
summary states the applicant was not interested in becoming a 
member of the AFR, rather he wanted full time employment.  

In accordance with the Deputy Secretary of Defense Memo, dated 
2 May 05, all military officer appointments under Section 12203 of 
Title l0, United States Code (USC), not previously approved by 
30 June 05, shall be submitted to the Secretary of Defense.

The complete DPA evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant does not refute the advisory opinion’s statement 
regarding out-processing comments made during his meeting with the 
recruiter in May 12.  Because of his new employment with Emory 
University, it was his intent to transition to the ANG in the fall 
of 2012, once he had settled in.  While on terminal leave in June 
12, he noted in his career brief that he was being assigned to 
Buckley, CO reporting 2 Jul 12.  He received a letter welcoming 
him to the IRR so he did not question it as he had previously 
noted it in his career brief of the pending assignment.  His 
ultimate goal was to transition to the ANG a few months later, so 
he believed that transitioning from the IRR to the ANG would make 
the transition smoother than if he had a break in service of 
several months.

In Nov 12, when he transferred to the ANG, it was his 
understanding that he was a part of the IRR due to the previous 
communication welcoming him to the IRR.  Additionally, he never 
received any communication telling him the welcoming communication 
was sent in error.  He filled out his AFR assignment paperwork 
based on this belief.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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 an error or injustice.  While the 
applicant's assertion that he thought he was in the IRR based on a 
notification letter he received is noted, he has not provided 
substantial evidence which, in our opinion, successfully refutes 
the assessment of his case by the Air Force Office of Primary 
Responsibility (OPR).  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the OPR and adopt the rationale expressed as the 
basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his 
burden of proof of either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the requested relief.


THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2014-01063 in Executive Session on 20 Jan 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPA, dated 23 Jun 14.
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Aug 14.  
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Aug 14, w/atchs.