RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-00702 COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED:	YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) be extended to the end of Fiscal Year 2016 (30 Sep 16) or preferably 30 Nov 16.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His MSD waiver request did not reach the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) until after his current MSD. His package was stalled for three months through no fault of his own. He was not allowed time to out-process or complete retirement programs due to the delay.

Due to the concurrent congressional budget issues, he was unable to perform any pay status duty for Oct and Nov 15 to ensure a credited year.

No one has been identified to assume his responsibilities and there is no time for him to mentor a replacement.

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Commissioned Service Date (TAFCSD) is
13 Jan 88.
On 26 Nov 13, the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) approved the applicant’s request to extend his MSD until 30 Nov 15.

On 29 May 15, the applicant submitted a request to extend his MSD to 30 Nov 18 and on 17 Dec 15, the SECAF denied the applicant’s request.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPTTS recommends denial indicating IAW 10 USC §14703(a)(3) the SECAF may, with the officer’s consent, retain in an active status any Reserve officer who is designated as a medical officer, dental officer, Air Force nurse, Medical Service Corps (MSC) officer, Biomedical Sciences Corps (BSC) officer, or Chaplain. The SECAF is the final approval and did not approve the applicant’s retention in the Air Force. To grant relief would be contrary to criteria established by 10 USC §14703(a)(3), and the final approval authority of the SECAF.

On 28 Dec 12, the applicant was notified that his MSD was recomputed and changed from 30 Nov 13 to 30 Nov 15 due to a change in 10 USC §14509, Separation at age 62: Reserve officers in grades below brigadier general. Also, it was noted that he would not be credited with any service or points earned after the day he becomes
60 years of age, unless he has an approved waiver from the SECAF IAW 10 USC §12308. The applicant did not take any action to request an extension until May 15, when he submitted another request to extend his MSD to 30 Nov 18.

The applicant was afforded plenty of time to outprocess and have a retirement ceremony in the event his MSD extension was not favorable. Also, there is no evidence to substantiate budget issues prevented the applicant from performing duty until his MSD of 30 Nov 15.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPTTS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial indicating the applicant has not presented any evidence to change its decision to deny his request. While the applicant’s request did not arrive at SAFPC for consideration until several months after his application date, this was known at the time SAFPC considered his application and rendered its decision. It is noted that the applicant’s request to the BCMR is for a much shorter period than what was considered by SAFPC. Nevertheless, it is unclear from the applicant’s submission why approval of his extension would be in the best interest of the Air Force.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 Dec 16, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E). 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 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, 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-2016-00702 in Executive Session on 13 Jun 17, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

Panel Chair Member
Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-00702 was considered:

Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 7 Jan 16, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.	Pertinent Excerpts from Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.	Memorandum, ARPC/DPTTS, 30 Jun 16, w/atchs.
Exhibit D.	Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, undated. Exhibit E.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 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.