THIRD ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02538 INDEX CODE: 135.05 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be credited with a year of active duty service rather than 30 days in support of OPERATION Enduring Freedom (OEF) and he be given additional credit for his service as a Reserve Liaison Officer (RLO). ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 2 November 2004, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s request for reinstatement to active Reserve status for a period of one to seven years so the congressionally authorized promotion board action, which promoted him to the grade of colonel, was not circumvented. For an accounting of the facts and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit N. On 17 May 2005, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s request contending that it was his understanding one reason he was not continued at the rank of colonel was because he was not performing duty in direct support of the global war on terrorism. For an accounting of the facts and the Board’s rationale, see the Addendum to Record of Proceedings, at Exhibit O. On 4 Dec 06, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s request contending that he was penalized six months of active service based on being inadvertently discharged while in Project Palace Option status. For an accounting of the facts and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit P. On 9 July 2008, the AFBCMR staff reviewed the applicant’s request for reconsideration, submitted through his Member of Congress and determined that it did not meet the criteria for reconsideration. By application, dated 17 Nov 08, the applicant requests his record be changed to reflect credit for a year of active duty service rather than 30 days in support of the OEF and he be given additional credit for service as a Reserve Liaison Officer (RLO). He believes this service will give him the additional three months service requirement for retirement in the grade of colonel. In support of his appeal, he submits copies of special orders, travel orders, and travel pay documents reflecting his service during OEF and as an RLO. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit Q. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In respect to the applicant’s request for credit as an RLO, it appears he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. 2. After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support of the appeal, we found no evidence warranting additional service credit for support of the OEF. The applicant believes he did not receive credit for his service during OEF, 2001 through 2002. However, after a review of the additional documentation submitted in support of his appeal, it appears the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his release from active duty on 24 October 2002, clearly reflects a year of active duty service in the grade of lieutenant colonel. Based on the evidence of record and previous analyses by HQ ARPC, we believe the applicant was given credit for all of his service during his career. As such, we did not find any evidence the applicant warranted additional service credit in the grade of colonel. It appears that based on laws and policies at the time, the applicant was appropriately retired after three months time-in- grade (TIG); three months short of the requirement to retire in the grade of colonel. Therefore, in view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the applicant’s request. 3. 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. ________________________________________________________________ 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 this application in Executive Session on 18 February 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit N. Record of Proceedings, dated 19 Nov 04, with Exhibits. Exhibit O. Addendum to Record of Proceedings, dated 26 Aug 05, with Exhibits. Exhibit P. Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings, dated 20 Dec 06, with Exhibits. Exhibit Q. DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 08, with attachments.