RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02618 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her date of separation (DOS) from the U.S. Air Force Reserve 
(USAFR) be changed from 30 Sep 2009 to 30 Sep 2010 in order to 
qualify for an active duty retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was fulfilling a vital and important need of the Air Force 
as evidenced by her nearly continuous active service on military 
personnel appropriation (MPA) days from 2002 through 2009. 
During that time, she received waivers to exceed the annual MPA 
limitations because of her unique skills, experience, and 
expertise for the job she was performing. Each year, her unit 
was unable to find any other officer on active duty to provide 
the same functions. As such, her situation represented an 
“unusual circumstances” that should have qualified her for 
retention beyond her mandatory separation date (MSD). 

 

However, the Chief of Air Force Reserve (AF/RE) and Secretary of 
the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) unjustly denied an 
extension to her mandatory separation date (MSD) in order to 
deprive her of an active duty (AD) retirement. 

 

In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
multiple Military Personnel Appropriation (MPA) man-day tour 
waivers from 2002 to 2009 with supporting documentation; signed Statements of Understanding: Waiver of Active Duty Sanctuary; 
and her request for an extension of her MSD, with supporting 
documentation. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served in the Air Force Reserve during the matter 
under review. 


Per AFI 36-2619, Military Personnel Appropriation (MPA) Man-Day 
Program, “MPA man-days support short-term needs of the active 
force by authorizing no more than 139 days annually to non-
Extended Active Duty (EAD) officers and airmen. These days are 
offered at the convenience of the government and when there is a 
temporary need for personnel with unique skills or resources 
that cannot be economically met in the active force” (para 1.1); 

 

For the purposes of this application, Title 10 U.S.C, § 12646 
allows Reserve members to be eligible for sanctuary if they are 
serving on active duty (AD) status and have 18 but less than 20 
years of satisfactory service. Sanctuary provides a member with 
a limited entitlement to remain on AD for the purpose of 
qualifying for an AD military retirement. 

 

However, AFI 36-2131, Administration of Sanctuary in the Air 
Force Reserve Component, provides that “Any ARC member 
performing…MPA or applicable Special Training (ST) tours 
specifying 180 days or less for which the period of AD would 
result in the member qualifying for AD sanctuary, may not begin 
the tour without an approved waiver in place prior to the tour 
start date. Any error or breach of policy, with regard to 
sanctuary waivers, is avoided if the member (who is in or whose 
upcoming tour would place them in the sanctuary zone) has a 
signed/approved waiver in place prior to the tour start date for 
any voluntary tours of active duty.” 

 

On 7 Sep 07, the applicant signed a waiver of her rights to 
invoke her rights to “sanctuary” under the provisions of AFI 36-
2131 during active duty tours commencing on 1 Oct 07, 28 Mar 08, 
and 23 Sep 08. 

 

On 12 Sep 08, the applicant signed a waiver of her right to 
invoke “sanctuary” under the provisions of AFI 36-2131 during 
active duty tours commencing on 1 Oct 08, 28 Mar 09, and 23 Sep 
09. 

 

In accordance with AFI 36-2619, reserve component members 
subject to mandatory discharge or retirement, whose Ready 
Reserve Service Agreement or enlistment date expires before the 
end of the proposed man-day tour are not eligible to serve MPA 
man-day tours. 

 

On 26 Feb 09, the applicant initiated a request to extend her 
MSD from 1 Oct 09 to 1 Oct 10. 

 

On 15 Jul 09, the Secretary of the Air Force denied the 
applicant’s MSD extension request. 

 

On 30 Sep 09, the applicant was released from her MPA tour and 
transferred to the retired reserve on 1 Oct 09 on her MSD. 

 

 


The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

SAF/MRBP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence that 
the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) 
“unjustly” denied the applicant an active duty retirement in 
denying her request for an extension of her MSD. Between 2002 
and 2009 the applicant served multiple MPA active duty tours. 
Prior to these active duty tours, she acknowledged in writing 
that she was waiving her right to invoke her right to retention 
on active duty under the sanctuary provisions, thus 
acknowledging she would not be able to reach eligibility for an 
active duty retirement prior to her MSD. The applicant and her 
counsel contend that her continued active duty service and 
sanctuary waivers constituted “unusual circumstances” for her 
retention beyond her MSD. However, the Chief of Air Force 
Reserve (AF/RE), after reviewing her request and considering the 
support of her leadership, determined that she did not meet the 
criteria for “unusual circumstances” to support her retention 
beyond her established MSD. Accordingly, the SAFPC concurred 
with his recommendation and, on 15 Jul 09, denied the 
applicant’s request for an extension of her MSD. All the 
relevant information and documentation was available for the 
Board’s consideration in making their decision. Upon 
retirement, the applicant had 19 years and 5 months of active 
duty service. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant, through counsel, highlights that according to 
published guidance, the purpose of the MPA program is to support 
the “short term needs of the active force” and specifically 
prohibits man-days from being used “as a substitute for 
establishing a valid position.” In addition, AF guidance states 
that man-days will not be used if a unit is already at 95% end 
strength, while the applicant’s unit was at 105% of authorized 
colonels. The applicant contends the AF “repeatedly and 
systematically violated its own regulation and abused the policy 
concerning man-days by requesting and approving the applicant to 
perform back-to-back tours for almost eight years.” The AF used 
this officer as if she were active duty and now has the audacity 
to deny her the retirement she has earned. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s response 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 not filed on time; however it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to file on time. 

 

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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion 
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice. Counsel argues the Air Force’s nearly continuous 
utilization of the applicant in MPA status in the years leading 
up to her mandatory separation date (MSD) constituted “unusual 
circumstances” which should have qualified her for retention 
beyond her mandatory separation date (MSD). However, after a 
thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, including her response to the Air Force 
evaluation, we are not convinced that she has been the victim of 
an error or injustice. The Chief of the Air Force Reserves was 
given the responsibility and authority to determine if 
circumstances existed that required extension of the applicant’s 
MSD. To overturn that decision after the fact would be to 
replace the judgment of the Chief of the Air Force Reserves in 
his assessment of those National security circumstances that 
existed at the time with our own. We also note Counsel’s 
argument on rebuttal that the Air Force’s utilization of the 
applicant on nearly continuous active duty in the years leading 
up to her MSD violated certain provisions of relevant 
instructions pertaining to the utilization of reserve component 
personnel. We would note that any violation of guidelines found 
in the pertinent instructions benefited the applicant who, as a 
result, was allowed to perform additional service and collect 
commensurate military pay, where strict application of the 
instruction would have denied the applicant the opportunity to 
serve, which she sought. Now the applicant comes to the Board 
to seek additional benefits citing the improper application of 
the instruction, after having received the benefits the 
instruction was intended to prevent. We are not persuaded that 
the tours the applicant performed established a prima facie 
right to be extended for the purpose of meeting retirement 
eligibility. Thus, we do not find these arguments sufficient to 
convince us the decision to deny the applicant’s request for an 
MSD extension was somehow arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, 
we note the applicant’s instant submission contains no new 
additional evidence beyond that which was already considered by 
SAFPC in making their initial determination. Therefore, absent 
any evidence the applicant was denied rights to which she was 
entitled, or there was an abuse of discretionary authority, we 
are not persuaded that we should substitute our judgment for 


that of the Commander, AFRC or SAFPC in making their respective 
determinations. 

 

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 
applicant was denied without a personal appearance; and the 
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of 
newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with the 
application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02618 in Executive Session on 19 Jan 12, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02618 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, 23 Jun 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 10 Aug 11 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Counsel, dated 2 Dec 11 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair