RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03221

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, block 2, Department, Component and Branch be changed to reflect “Regular Air Force (RegAF)” rather than “United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR).” 

2.  Her Points Credit Accounting and Reporting System (PCARS) and Point History Summary component codes be corrected.   

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was not appropriately released from the Air Force Reserve on 24 Jul 96.  Subsequently, she was denied a bonus that requires her to serve in the RegAF.  After multiple agency involvements it was determined that her DD Form 214, dated 1 Oct 00 and Point History component mismatched initial active duty order requirements.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to the applicant’s AF Form 133, Oath of Office (Military Personnel), on 15 Jul 96, she was appointed a second lieutenant (2Lt) in the Reserve of the Air Force.  

On 20 Oct 00, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAFR with narrative reason for separation of “Completion of Required Active Service” in the grade of captain (Capt).  

According to Special Order AGA-411, dated 11 Aug 10, on 16 Aug 10, the applicant was ordered to Extended Active Duty (EAD) for a three year period (16 Aug 10 to 15 Aug 13).  

On 10 Dec 15, the applicant’s DD Form 214, block 2, was administratively corrected to reflect “RegAF.”

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPRs), which is attached at Exhibits C and E.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denial indicating a review of the applicant’s records as well as documents provided reflect that her DD Form 214 is correct as is.  The applicant contends she was denied a bonus that required she serve in the RegAF; however, she served on active duty as part of the Reserve component.  A review of the applicant’s military history revealed she will not be eligible for the officer affiliation bonus.  Specifically, the applicant started her career in the REGAF from 25 Jul 96 to 10 Oct 00, and then joined a Reserve unit afterwards.  When the applicant joined the AFR, there was no officer affiliation bonus program.  The officer affiliation bonus program started 1 Sep 08 and is not grandfathered.  Any officer that joined the AFR before 1 Sep 08, will not qualify for the officer affiliation bonus.  

Soon after joining the AFR, the applicant received a three year Air Guard Reserve (AGR) tour (16 Aug 10 to 15 Aug 13) and cross trained into a bonus Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 11M.  There is no retraining bonus for officers; when a member affiliates and becomes a traditional reservist, they must hold the AFSC on the day gained.  After serving her AGR tour the applicant became a traditional reservist.  AGRs are reservist with REGAF benefits and entitlements.  Officers cannot affiliate from an AGR tour, only from REGAF.  Affiliation bonuses are paid to those qualified personnel who are transferring directly from active duty (REGAF) without a break in service (i.e. PALACE FRONT applicants) and have completed fewer than 20 years of military service from pay date.  A pay date bonus also applies to officers who affiliate from the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) while serving the remainder of a Military Service Obligation (MSO).  PALACE CHASE applicants are not eligible.  

The applicant’s AF Form 133, Oath of Office, dated 5 Jul 96, reflects the type of commission as “Reserve.”  Her active duty order reflects she served in an active duty status and her component was Air Force Reserve (AFR).  Further, her Points History Summary component codes are also correct.  In accordance with AFI 36-2011, Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC) Program, paragraph 12.9.2., “the type of commission for AFROTC Cadets will be Reserve of the Air Force.”  To approve the applicant’s request would be contrary to the Department of Defense (DoD) and Air Force Instruction (AFI).
A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 May 16, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

ADDITIONAL AIR FOR EVALUAITON:

After reviewing the ARPC/DPTS advisory opinion, dated 11 May 16, the Board staff determined an additional advisory was needed to address why the applicant’s DD Form 214 was corrected on 10 Dec 15, to reflect that she was RegAF during the period 25 Jul 96 through 10 Oct 00.  By email dated 21 Oct 16, ARPC/DPTS advised the Board staff that the applicant’s DD Form 214 dated 10 Dec 15, was erroneously completed and they have since replaced it.  Her DD Form 214 now reflects that she was considered a member of the Air Force Reserve during the period 25 Jul 96 through 10 Oct 00. 

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTS evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

As required by 10 U.S.C. 1556(a), on 27 Oct 16, a summary of the communications made by ARPC/DPTS to the Board was provided to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

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 in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of 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-2015-03221 in Executive Session on 13 Dec 16, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jul 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPTS, dated 11 May 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 May 16.
	Exhibit E.  Email, AFBCMR, dated 21 Oct 16.
	Exhibit F.  Email, AFBCMR, dated 27 Oct 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.