RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01278 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive pay and points for two Unit Training Assemblies (UTAs) he performed 4 – 5 May 13 and 3 – 4 Aug 13 during Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He performed UTAs during FY13; however, he was not paid for this period due to an administratively deficient assignment process. He had a pending assignment; however, because of the deficiency in the process he did not receive notification of the reassignment and reported to his current unit as normal. The system was down that drill weekend so he signed in manually. He was informed that he would be paid for the May UTA even though he had transferred to a different unit. Due to the mishandling of his reenlistment paperwork, he missed a UTA and had to transfer back to his previous unit. As a result, he was unjustly denied participation during the period 6 May – 2 Aug 13. He complied with the instructions from his Military Personnel Section (MPS); however, because of system problems he was not paid for the Aug 13 UTA. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 5 Jun 11, the applicant reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve for a period of two years. On 3 Jul 13, the applicant extended for 2 months. On 3 Aug 13, the applicant reenlisted for a period of two years. The applicant was reassigned to the 920 OSS, effective 15 Oct 13. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K concurs with the recommendation from AFRC/RMG to deny the applicant’s request for pay and points for the period May – Jul 13. Based on the documentation provided, RMG cannot substantiate the applicant’s claim that he was unjustly denied participation while assigned to the 6 OSS. His claim is to be paid for UTAs he neither performed, nor would have been authorized to perform. On 26 Apr 13, the applicant’s new unit of assignment, 6 OSS forwarded him a welcome email to the address listed on his resume. He was aware of the 26 Apr 13 effective date and that further participation with his old unit should cease. Furthermore, 6 OSS tried to contact the applicant on several occasions between 10 May – 17 Jun 13. His Expiration Term of Service (ETS) was 4 Jun 13. Because of his non-responsiveness, the 6 OSS elected to release him to return to his previous unit, the 308 RQS, and his ETS was extended to 4 Aug 13 to allow for the transfer. The applicant was gained as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) on 26 Apr 13, which precluded him from participating at his previous unit. Additionally, he transferred back to the 308 RQS on 3 Aug 13; therefore, as the gaining unit, the 308 RQS, should address any issues with compensation for drills performed in Aug 13. The complete A1K evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 25 Aug 14 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Regarding his request for pay and points during the 4 – 5 Aug 13 UTA. The applicant has not exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. In this respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level of appeal within the Air Force. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. The Air Force office of primary responsibility has reviewed this application and indicated there is an available avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first pursued. In view of this, we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this level as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has not first been depleted. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this portion of the application. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting pay and points for the 3 – 4 May 13 UTA. 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 and adopt its 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 relief sought in this application. 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-2014-01278 in Executive Session on 20 Jan 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Mar 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Electronic Mail, AFRC/A1K, dated 18 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14.