RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-01973

	COUNSEL: 

  	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His high year tenure (HYT) be 26 Jan 24, instead of 1 Aug 19.   

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was notified by ARPC on 14 Mar 17 he was not eligible for a six-year enlistment as his HYT was 2019 and not 2024.  He was advised his HYT should have been corrected three years prior when he left his Air Reserve Technician (ART) position for an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) billet.  

ARPC’s failure to update his correct HYT when he converted to the AGR program is an injustice.  He made career and life plans based on his belief his HYT was seven years and not two years away.  He believed he would have sufficient time to complete a second AGR tour and be eligible for an active duty retirement.  As of 6 Apr 17, the military personnel data system (MILPDS) shows his HYT as 26 Jan 24.  The applicant’s complete  submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a chief master sergeant in the AGR.

As of 7 Jun 18, MILPDS reflects HYT is blank and his expiration term of service (ETS) is 30 Mar 19.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTT  recommends denial.  The applicant was an ART and had a HYT of 26 Jan 24 based on his ART position.  His HYT should have been corrected back to 1 Aug 19 three years ago when he vacated his ART position; however, his unit failed to notify him that his HYT would be adjusted back to his pay date, plus 33 years of creditable service for military pay (CSMP) or one day prior to age 60 (DOB: 26 Jul 67), whichever comes first.  To grant relief would be contrary to criteria established by AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment and Extension of Enlistment in the United States Air Force.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 24 May 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an injustice.  While the Board recognizes there was an administrative error in the correction to his HYT upon the vacation of his ART position, we are not persuaded the administrative error rises to a level of an injustice to warrant granting the requested relief.  Accordingly, the Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of ARPC and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-01973 in Executive Session on 10 Jul 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following in Docket Number BC-2017-01973:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 10 Apr 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 24 Jan 18
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 24 May 18.  

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.