RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00034

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) be extended to allow him to continue to serve; in rebuttal, that he be put in place as if he had continued to serve and receive all promotions, pay, and status.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 2015, the applicant retired from the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  As a Health Services Administrator, he received MSD waivers since 2009 and understood his MSD could be waived until age 68.

Due to a 2014 reorganization, his positon was eliminated, and he became an overage.  He learned that, since he was now an overage, he would no longer be approved for an MSD waiver unless he found a position where he would not be an overage.  He found such a position with the Air Force Reserve (AFR).  However, in May 2015, he received word that the paperwork to show he had transferred to the AFR was missing, and so the ANG processed his separation.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Air Force Reserve as a Second Lieutenant (2Lt) on 16 October 1981.  Under the provisions of Title 10, USC, Section 14703, a medical officer may be extended to age 68.  The applicant’s date of birth is 10 March 1958.

For more information, see the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) at Exhibits C and F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTT recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.

The applicant did not provide evidence that an MSD extension waiver was submitted beyond his last MSD of 1 May 2015.  In June 2015, HQ ARPC informed the applicant, by email and by telephone, of the MSD waiver extension process.  The applicant did not submit a request with justification for a MSD extension waiver.  With no MSD extension waiver in effect, the applicant was assigned appropriately to the Retired Reserve effective 2 May 2015.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTT evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He was told if he found a position where he was not an overage, getting a waiver would not be an issue.  He found a position, but was discharged from the Guard before he could be recruited into the Reserve.  He informed the recruiters of his situation and believed they were going to handle processing the waiver.  He was not aware that a new MSD was required when changing components.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP reviewed the applicant’s request and concurs with the recommendation of ARPC/DPTT to deny the applicant’s request to extend his MSD past 1 May 2015.  There was no evidence provided to validate the Air Force Reserve supported an MSD extension.

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant notes although SAF/MRBP concurred with the recommendation of ARPC/DPTT, it only addressed part of the issue.  What is missing is a series of events and processes that were either not known or followed, resulting in his being forced out of military service.

He followed the instructions given him to allow him to continue to serve, but for reasons beyond his control and due to no fault of his own the transfer did not take place.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

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 note of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting 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 relevant evidence not considered with this application.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-00034 in Executive Session on 13 March 2018, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-00034 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Dec 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Record Excerpts.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/DPTT, dated 25 Mar 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Jun 16.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 13 Oct 17.
	Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Oct 17. 
	Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Oct 17, w/atchs.

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.