RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03706 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be credited with enough retirement points to qualify for Reserve retired pay at age 60. 2. His Air Force Reserve Retired grade to Master Sergeant (MSgt/E-7) be corrected. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was verbally counseled that he qualified for an Air Force Reserve (USAFR) retirement in the grade of MSgt. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: Based on documentation provided by the applicant, on 8 Aug 75, he initially entered the Regular Air Force and served until he was honorably discharged, on 1 Jul 81. He was credited with 5 years, 10 months, and 23 days of active duty service. According to his AF Form 526, Air National Guard (ANG)/USAFR Point Credit Summary, on 6 May 82, the applicant enlisted in the USAFR. Reserve Order (RO) P-016, dated 26 Oct 90, reflects the applicant was promoted to the grade of MSgt with an effective date and Date of Rank (DOR) of 1 Nov 90. At the time of the applicant’s promotion, he was on Extended Active Duty (EAD) orders deployed to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm. On 17 Nov 95, the applicant reenlisted for a period of two years in the grade of MSgt. On 26 Jan 96, an AF Form 2096, Classification/On-the-Job Training Action, reflects effective 1 Feb 96, the applicant was reassigned from the 934 ASTS to the 934 AST. According to the Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS), the applicant was demoted to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt) with an effective date of 1 Feb 96. Based on information provided by the applicant, a letter, dated 13 Jul 96, indicates the applicant was told by the 47 AES Human Resource Manager, that he had enough points to retire. This letter also noted that he was working on a Master’s Degree, was experiencing civilian job/school conflicts, and requested he be excused from attending Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs) and to be reassigned to the Non-Active Reserve Status so he would have the option to fulfill any additional requirements for retirement or to return to Reserve status. Reserve Order A-052, dated 23 Jan 97, reflects the applicant was reassigned to the Non-Affiliated Reserve Section - RD (NARS-RD), effective 31 Jan 97. The reason for the reassignment was based on civilian job/school conflicts. Reserve Order CA-005279, on 16 Nov 97, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge from the USAFR in the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6). He was credited with 19 years, 10 months, and 23 days of satisfactory Federal service. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends approval, indicating the applicant did not complete 20 years of satisfactory service and did not obtain eligibility for Reserve Retired pay under the provision of Title 10, USC, Section 12731. However, the applicant is short one month and seven days; more than likely, he was ill advised. If the Board agrees with our recommendation, the records should be corrected to show the applicant was awarded 19 non-paid inactive duty training points for Retention/Retirement year 6 May 97 to 16 Nov 97, resulting in 6 months and 10 days of additional satisfactory service for a total of 20 years, 5 months and 3 days of satisfactory service and eligibility for Reserve Retired pay. The applicant's demotion from MSgt to TSgt on 1 Feb 96 was due to a voluntary change of assignment. However, if the decision is to grant the relief sought, the records should be corrected to show he would receive Reserve Retired pay in the grade of MSgt. The complete DPTT evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates his original contention that he was led to believe that he was retirement eligible. He provides a timeline of the circumstances which precipitated his application to the Board and his current status. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) recommends denial indicating the applicant was discharged in 1997 because he did not complete 20 years of satisfactory service and, therefore, did not obtain the time needed for Reserve Retired pay. Additionally, the applicant’s grade at the time of discharge was that of Technical Sergeant (TSgt). The applicant states in his application that his belief was that he would retire as a Master Sergeant. However, his records show several source documents where his rank reflected that of TSgt, specifically a Classification/On-the-Job Training Action dated 28 Sep 93; an application for Uniformed Services Identification Card/DEERs Enrollment for his identification card dated 15 Aug 96; a point credit summary dated 5 May 97, and a certificate of discharge dated 16 Nov 97. Additionally, the applicant states in his application that he was told by the 47 AES Human Resource Manager, that he had enough points to retire without repercussion. However, the May 97 Point Credit Summary showed that he did not have enough years for Satisfactory Service in that he had 19 years, 10 months, and 23 days. Additionally, the applicant sent a memo for reassignment to commander, dated 13 Jul 96, requesting he be excused from attending Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs) and also be reassigned to the Non-Active Reserve Status so he would have the option to fulfill any additional requirements for retirement or in the event he wanted to return to Reserve status. The complete SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit F. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant notes that after receiving the SAFPC advisory opinion, he became dismayed. He immediately made contact to seek advice and assistance from his State Representative’s district office and was informed they could do nothing to assist him due to this issue being “a military matter.” They recommended contact with a Veteran’s Representative. Unfortunately, they conveyed the same message as his State Representative’s office. He has previously searched through his records and personnel documents back in 2014 for inclusion as part of his initial application, which took an extraordinary effort and an inordinate amount of time. However, he believes he has forwarded all relevant information and provided all pertinent information to the Board. Based on a letter he received from HQ ARPC/DPTT dated, 28 Oct 2014, para 3 recommending his “…request be approved,” that gave him comfort and a sigh of relief. All he had to do was wait for final approval by AFBCMR. The applicant submits a statement to further describe the events surrounding his experiences at the time when he chose to transfer to the inactive Reserve. He notes his deployment in support of Desert Shield/Desert Storm and subsequent transfer when his experiences with his unit evolved. After returning from his deployment, he was trying to adjust to the climate at the unit; having medical issues (post-deployment) with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); dealing with marital problems, and pursuing higher education in a master’s degree program. During this period his living arrangements were not stable and he may not have received all of his mail. He ask the Board to consider his service to his country; the fact that he was informed of, and assured, he had enough time in service and time in grade to retire and respectfully request recognition for his dedicated service to his country, by rendering him a favorable review and authorization for retirement. On 21 Feb 16, the applicant submitted an email indicating that he had found additional documentation to substantiate his rank as MSgt. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit H. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has not exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice in regard to the applicant’s request to be retired in the grade of master sergeant. In this respect, we note that SAFPC did not concur with the recommendation from ARPC on the applicant’s grade at retirement; however, based on current policy, this determination is made at the time of retirement, or as in this case at age 60. As such, we believe the applicant should be afforded an opportunity to resolve all available avenues of administrative relief prior to seeking relief from the Board. Therefore, we recommend the applicant submit a request to the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) to determine if the applicant has served satisfactorily in the higher grade of master sergeant within the meaning of the law. In view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this portion of the application. 4. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting corrective action in regard to the applicant’s request for a Reserve retirement. We note the comments from SAFPC; nonetheless, in considering the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force Reserve office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. Accordingly, we recommend the applicant’s record be corrected as indicated below. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show that: a. He was credited with an additional 19 non-paid inactive duty training points for Retention/Retirement (R/R) year 6 May 97 to 16 Nov 97, resulting in 6 months and 10 days of additional satisfactory Federal service for a total of 20 years, 5 months and 3 days of satisfactory Federal service; and, eligibility for Reserve retired pay at age 60. b. His election of the Survivor Benefit Plan option will be corrected in accordance with his expressed preferences and/or as otherwise provided for by law or the Code of Federal Regulations. The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03706 in Executive Session on 4 Jun 15 and 24 Feb 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member All members voted to correct the records as recommended. The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03706 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Available Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPTT, dated 28 Oct 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Oct 15, w/atchs. Exhibit F. Letter, SAFPC, dated 12 Feb 16. Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Feb 16. Exhibit H. Electronic Mail (E-Mail), dated 18, 19, 20, 21 Feb 16, w/ atchs.