RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02146 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Seven additional inactive duty training points be added to his record of Air National Guard (ANG) service for the anniversary year ending on 5 February 2010. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. He made every attempt to work with his assigned ANG unit to receive the required points, but was informed that he would not be able to conduct any drill days because he didn’t display a “commitment and clear understanding of how he wanted to proceed as a member of the ANG”. 2. Instead of being at 18 good years (16 active duty and 2 with the ANG) he remained at 17 good years. He has received a good year with the Air Force Reserves but feels he also deserves the seven points to obtain a good year which will bring him to 19 good years for retirement. 3. He filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint as he has been unable to join another Guard unit that associates with his previous unit. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves in the grade of Staff Sergeant, E-5. On 12 March 2012, the applicant filed an IG complaint (Exhibit C) via an AF IMT 102, Inspector General Personal and Fraud, Waste and Abuse Complaint Registration, against his previous ANG unit and another ANG unit he had attempted to join. The complaint alleged slander and unprofessional behavior of certain members of both units. He alleged that members of his previous unit said slanderous things about him when the unit, in which he was seeking a position, called to verify his association with the previous unit. Based on the previous unit’s negative comments, the gaining unit told him “they did not have an open position; as a matter of fact, all their positions were quite full.” He believes everything the previous unit said about him was obviously on a personal level and has affected his ability to join a unit and finish out his last two years of service. He is currently at 20 years of service but has 2 bad years. He was seven points shy of a good year with his previous unit and took off the last year. The Secretary of the Air Force IG (SAF/IG) reviewed the applicant’s allegations. They determined the comments provided via email were negative but did not violate any Air Force Instructions (AFIs) and the issue was not appropriate for the for the IG system and should be addressed by the unit commander. Since the complaint involved two ANG units, the case was split between points of contact (POCs) for each unit. The POC from the gaining unit discussed the case with the applicant to determine options. The POC said it was entirely up to the command to take an Airman or not. They looked into the applicant’s issues but at that time, there was nothing they could do to help him get into an ANG unit since he did not want to travel on weekends for Drill and most units want their personnel to show up for Drill. The POC of the previous unit notified the applicant that the unit commander inquired and found no slanderous comments made about the applicant between the two units. They concluded that an allegation could not be framed because no standard was violated. A complaint clarification was conducted and the applicant could not provide specific information against a standard to warrant an allegation. The case was closed on 15 June 2012. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PS recommends denial. A1PS states the applicant’s communication attempt to acquire participation points began fifteen days prior to his Retention/Retirement (R/R) closeout date. His leadership stated there were no options left and no window of opportunity to work his request. The applicant inquired with his chain of command about earning participation points before his year ended when he learned that retesting for Professional Military Education (PME) credit was not an option. The applicant proposed to leadership different scenarios to receive credit/points; however, his best solution to leadership included Advanced Distributed Learning Systems (ADLS) points or one day of drill attendance. Leadership noted that ADLS was not required at the time and one day of drill was not enough for a year of satisfactory service. In accordance with AFI 36-2254 Vol 1, Reserve Personnel Participation, paragraph 1.2.3, all training must be scheduled and approved in advance and the supervisor may use any documentation method that best meets their needs and the needs of their members. It is the member’s responsibility to ensure that all general requirements and category requirements in Table 1.1 are met. The applicant had two weeks to comply with the remaining participation points needed towards a satisfactory federal service after the correspondence began. They found no error or injustice occurred and would not recommend relief from this complaint. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. NGB/A1P states they concur with NGB/A1PS and recommend relief be denied as no error or injustice has occurred. The complete NGB/A1P evaluation is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 29 November 2012 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). To date, this office has not received a response. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took careful notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and the recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The applicant’s contention that he has been unable to join another Guard unit is duly noted; however, we do not find the evidence provided is sufficient to overcome the findings of the SAF/IG, which concluded that the unit members’ comments did not violate any Air Force Instructions. In addition, a complaint clarification was conducted and the applicant could not provide specific information against a standard to warrant an allegation. Therefore, in view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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 members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 15 February 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02146: Exhibit A. DD Form 149 dated 15 May 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. IG Complaint dated 12 March 2012 (withdrawn). Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 16 November 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 26 November 2012. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 November 2012. Panel Chair , Panel Chair , Member , Member