RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00171

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be allowed to reenlist in the Air Force Reserve (USAFR) with retroactive pay and points from 2 Dec 10 to present.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not informed of his non-selection for reenlistment and he was not afforded the opportunity to appeal his commander’s non-selection.  He was denied due process when his commander failed to follow the proper steps to notify him of the denial of reenlistment.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of various email communications regarding his request for an extension and reenlistment eligibility; letter from his commander denying reenlistment; letter from Career Assistance Advisor regarding the Selective Retention Process (SRP); SRP Report on Individual Personnel, and AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), on 29 May 81, the applicant entered the USAFR.

On 14 Nov 03, ARPC/DPPR notified the applicant of his eligibility for retired pay upon reaching the age of 60.

According to MilPDS, on 3 Dec 06, the applicant reenlisted for a period four years.  As a result of his reenlistment, his Expiration Term of Service/Date of Separation was established as 2 Dec 10.

According to the applicant’s AF Form 418, on 30 Mar 10, the applicant’s supervisor non-recommended him for reenlistment.  His supervisor indicated that the actions of the applicant to include disobeying an order from an officer, brought into question his judgment and ability to lead and function well as an airman in the U.S. Air Force.  On that same date, the applicant’s commander non-selected him for reenlistment.  The applicant did not acknowledge receipt of the AF Form 418.

In a letter, dated 5 Jun 10, the applicant’s commander informed him that his eligibility for enlistment was being denied and that the AF Form 418 required his signature acknowledging the decision on his eligibility for reenlistment.

On 19 Nov 10, AFRC/JAS notified the applicant via email that there was no way to extend his enlistment and that it was unlikely his unit would approve any reenlistment request.

According to Discharge Order, Reserve Order A-030, dated 3 Dec 10, on 2 Dec 10, the applicant received an honorable discharge, with a reenlistment eligibility status: AFR not selected AF Form 418.  He was credited with 26 years, 5 months, and 27 days of total satisfactory service.

AFI 36-2612, United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Reenlistment and Retention Program, paragraph 3.5.3., Selection Processing states, “The unit (or unit of assignment) commander weighs the supervisor’s recommendation and other pertinent data and decides whether to select the member for reenlistment.”

Paragraph 3.5.3.2 states, “To not select the member, the commander:”

•Personally advises the member of the non-selection.

•Completes AF Form 418.

•Has the member initial acknowledgment, sign, and date the AF Form 418.

•Advises the member in writing of the right to appeal non-selection under paragraph 3.8. of this instruction.

•Submits AF Form 418, with supporting documentation, to the retention program manager (HQ ARPC/MSP for IMAs).

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K recommends denial indicating the unit attempted to notify the applicant of the intent to deny his reenlistment and AFRC/JA informed him, prior to his Expiration Term of Service (ETS), of the likelihood of his reenlistment being denied.  Additionally, there is no evidence the applicant contacted his unit to find out about his reenlistment.

Notification of the applicant was attempted by mail because he was not available for personal notification due to being denied participation based on an involuntary administrative discharge action that was withdrawn just prior to his ETS.  Notification was mailed to the applicant’s last known address provided to the unit by him.  It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure his assigned unit is aware of his current mailing address.

A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues IAW AFI 36-2612, paragraph 3.5.3.2, his commander should have personally notified him of the denial of reenlistment because he participated in the USAFR during the window of opportunity for reenlistment.  He states that he provided his unit with a current address and is unsure of why the reenlistment denial was not sent to his home address.  He asserts that it is the commander’s responsibility to bring a member in for drill to ensure the member understands the implications of the denial of participation.  Additionally, he opines that AFRC/JA informing him of what decision may be made, does not constitute notification.  Furthermore, there is nowhere in their response where he was ever contacted, although there was an ongoing discharge action against him.  When the unit received the return to sender notification, they could have notified him of the return notification.  Moreover, the AFI specifically states, “these actions will be done in person.”  There are no provisions for notification of denial of reenlistment.  Nevertheless, everything was based on an unfounded/unsubstantiated discharge action that was thrown out by the unit that denied his reenlistment; based on a discharge action that never happened, just dates before his ETS.  

The applicant reiterates that he is requesting that he receive pay and points up to his HYT which is 28 May 14.  In addition, he request that his reenlistment code be updated as selected and his records reflect that he was retired, effective 1 Jun 14.

Lastly, the applicant expresses that it was his goal to serve for 33 years but that right was taken away based on an administrative oversight of not following the content of the AFI.  His unit made sure that he was aware of the discharge action and it being thrown out, but did not follow through to personally notify him of his commander’s decision to deny his reenlistment.  He is extremely disappointed that all of his rights were taken away and hope that he is awarded pay and points, two medals from serving at Balad Air Base, Iraq, and his records be updated to reflect he was retired, effective 1 Jun 14.

The 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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his response to the Air Force OPR evaluation, in judging the merits of the case; however, while the applicant contend that his appeals rights were violated we did not find the evidence sufficient to override the recommendation from the OPR.  In our view, while the governing directive indicates the commanders should personally advise a member of non-selection, it appears AFRC, who is the appeal authority in this matter, noted the applicant’s unit made every effort to notify him of the non-selection for reenlistment by mail.  Further, based on the timing of the events surrounding the applicant’s non-selection for reenlistment, we are not convinced that an appeal action would have rendered a different outcome since the record is void of any evidence from the applicant’s chain of command.  Consequently, the applicant did receive the AF Form 418 for which he was not-selected because he provided a copy with his application.  Therefore, based on the expressed rationale, the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Should the applicant provide additional information to substantiate his claim we may be willing to reconsider his appeal.  Additionally, we note in response to the Air Force OPR evaluation, the applicant has made additional requests which was not a part of his original request; however; in order for the Board to properly review the applicant’s request for two decorations for service in Iraq and retirement, effective 1 Jun 14, the applicant will need to submit a new DD Form 149.  In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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 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-2015-00171 in Executive Session on 2 May 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				, Panel Chair
				, Member
				, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFRC/A1K, dated 23 Nov 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Mar 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Apr 16.