RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01653 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect: 1) He obtained the minimum requirement of 50 points for service in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 2) He secured the sanctuary protections of 10 U.S. Code Section 12646 on or around 9 Jun 09 3) He was not separated on 1 Mar 10 4) He be reinstated to the Air Force Reserve in the grade of major (0-4) 5) He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In a 9-page brief of counsel with 16 enclosures the applicant makes the following major contentions: 1. Due to an administrative error beyond his control, he was denied the opportunity to perform reserve duties during FY06. The Air Force admitted its responsibility for an the error of failing to properly enter and display his security clearance status. During FY06, he needed 29 points to secure the required 50 points; however, he was denied reserve duty and did not earn sufficient points for a “good year” from 9 Jun 06 to 8 Jun 07. 2. But for the Air Force’s administrative errors, his mandatory separation date (MSD) would have fallen after he secured 18 years of service, thus bringing him within the reserve component sanctuary protections of 10 U.S.C., Section 12646. He would have continued service until retirement eligibility. In support of his request, the applicant’s counsel submits a nine-page brief of counsel, copies of the applicant’s promotion recommendations, officer performance reports, support letters, points summary and mandatory separation date (MDS) waiver package, and copies of pertinent Air Force Instructions. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), the applicant served in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of major (O-4) during the matter under review. During the retention/retirement year 9 Jun 06 through 8 Jun 07, the applicant was credited with six inactive duty training (IDT) points and 15 membership points, for a total of 21 total points which constitutes an unsatisfactory year of Reserve service. On 17 Sep 07, according to information provided by the applicant, he requested excusal from the participation requirements prescribed in AFMAN 36-8001 for fiscal year 2006 (FY06) and his request was subsequently approved. The basis for his request was the fact the noted issues with his security clearance precluded him from performing duty during the period indicated. He noted the issue with his clearance was resolved in Dec 06. On 11 Aug 09, the applicant was notified that he was being discharged. The specific reason was his two non-selections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. He did not qualify for transfer to the Retired Reserve. On 3 Dec 09, the applicant requested a waiver to extend his MSD from 1 Mar 10 to 9 Aug 10, to allow him to complete a 2009 Retirement/Retention (R/R) year, be properly credited for 18 years of service and entry into retirement sanctuary. The request was approved by his immediate chain-of-command. On 1 Feb 10, the Chief of Air Force Reserve recommended denial of the applicant’s request for a waiver of his Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) and retention in service. His review of the case determined the circumstances did not warrant individual processing of the request to meet the needs of the Air Force. In addition, he stated neither the applicant nor his organization demonstrated where the loss of the applicant would result in mission degradation. On 16 Feb 10, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel disapproved the applicant’s request for retention in active status until 9 Aug 10. On 1 Mar 10, the applicant was discharged from the Individual Air Force Reserve in the grade of major, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Aug 02. He had 17 years and 9 months of satisfactory service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC RGM/CC recommends denial. RGM/CC notes the applicant accrued three unsatisfactory years of service: Jun 02 - Jun 03, Jun 04 - Jun 05 and Jun 06 – Jun 07 (FY06). He received a waiver for FY06, but did not have a waiver for prior years. RGM/CC states service members must complete a minimum requirement of 50 points per R/R year to obtain retirement credit for a satisfactory year. A waiver from statutory FY participation requirements does not warrant a satisfactory year of service. RGM/CC opines the applicant did not properly plan his Air Force participation requirements which prevented him from being competitive for promotion. The complete RGM/CC evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel responds that the Air Force evaluation failed to address the applicant’s contention that the Air Force deprived him of the opportunity to accrue at least 50 points during FY06. Counsel states the Air Force recommends denial because the applicant had unsatisfactory participation in two other periods, from June 2002 to June 2003, and June 2004 to June 2005. Counsel asserts the Board should note that the applicant “made up” for his lost time by performing extra points during the following two years. Counsel states that if the Air Force had not failed to properly display the applicant’s active security clearance in FY06, he would have secured, without question, an additional 29 points to add to the 21 he had received, and thus receive retirement credit for a good year of service. Finally, the applicant’s counsel states that the applicant actually performed 18 years of service, yet was not credited for that service. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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 error or injustice. While the documentation presented indicates the applicant was precluded from performing his reserve duties during the matter under review, we are not convinced that said issues precluded him from attaining a satisfactory year of Reserve service during the contested retirement/retention (R/R) year. In this respect we note the applicant has presented documentation, namely his after the fact request for a waiver of the participation requirements during FY06, indicating the issues with his security clearance were resolved as late as Dec 2006. While the applicant was eventually credited with 21 points for the contested R/R year, we are not convinced he made a reasonable attempt to perform the requisite duty to attain a satisfactory year of service. In this respect, we note that he was credited with six IDT points which he earned by performing three days of training during this period of more than five months. However, the other 15 points he was credited with are membership points, which are gratuitous and not derived from any duty performed by the applicant. In view of this, and in the absence of any evidence the applicant was somehow precluded from performing duty once his security clearance issues were resolved, we are not convinced the applicant is the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, having no basis to conclude the applicant’s inability to attain a satisfactory year of Reserve service was directly attributable to his difficulties with his security clearance, we find no basis to question the subsequent decision to deny the applicant’s request for an MSD extension based on the needs of the service. Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. _______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC- 2011-01653: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, RMG/CC, dated 26 Aug 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Sep 11, w/atchs.