RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-03960

  	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to include three (3) years of his Air Force Reserve (AFR) service time.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

According to his records, he should have 22 years of service, rather than 19 years of service.  His years of service in the Air National Guard (ANG) are accounted for; however, his AFR service time is not included.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the AFR.  On 9 Mar 17, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) directed he be discharged with a general service characterization in the grade of lieutenant colonel.  

Reserve Order CB-21, dated 22 Mar 17, reflects he was discharged from the AFR with a general characterization of service, effective 10 Mar 17.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denying the application.  The applicant provides supporting documents; however, the documents are problematic and appear to be fraudulent.  The AF Form 40As, Record of Individual Inactive Duty Training (IDT), provided were not certified; the requested points were originally removed based on the applicant’s violation of Article 107, False Official Statement and Article 132, Frauds Against the United States; and the SAF directed a “General” discharge based on the same circumstances.  Specifically, he “took funds he was not entitled to receive; was negligently derelict in the performance of his duties leading to his improper claims of approximately 400 points toward a military reserve retirement; and intentionally submitted false documentation to his unit.”  

The Readiness Management Group Director of Personnel (RMG/DP) directed the applicant’s AFR points be removed from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) and the Points Credit Accounting and Report System (PCARS) due to false official statements and fraud.  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 4 Jan 18 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 1 Feb 18.  In his response, he provides a detailed explanation regarding the processing of his temporary duty (TDY) orders and the three missing years of AFR service time.  He is not asking for all 400 IDT points to be reinstated.  

Regarding the misstatements on the IDT forms, he asked the RMG how to create his own orders and was told that if the AFR paid for his travel then he would put his place of duty as his TDY location.  He was told by his active duty supervisors that it would be advantageous to the command if he attended meetings in a military status.  However, being new to the AFR Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program and the Civil Service arena, he was naive on the way things were done.  During the three missing years in the AFR, he went through four division chiefs (1 Navy Commander and 3 Army Colonels).   He repeatedly informed his division chiefs that his military leave was not showing up in the payroll system.  He was repeatedly directed to attend meetings in military status and was told that “we will catch up with the paperwork later.”  Because the “paperwork” never caught up, he was accused of double dipping.  He would have received his same civilian pay amount.  Although the pots of money would have been different, the amount would have been the same. What everyone keeps on forgetting or unwilling to admit is that he was directed/ordered by his boss to attend these meetings in military status.  His military security clearance was sent to all meetings, not his civilian clearance.  His travel orders listed him as a military officer and not as a civilian. He participated in many out briefs with his command and was in uniform; therefore, it cannot be true that no one knew he was not in a military status.  The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

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 error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of ARPC/DPTS and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  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-2017-03960 in Executive Session on 16 May 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 29 Aug 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, ARPC/DPTS, dated 21 Dec 17.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 4 Jan 18.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 1 Feb 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 pertaining to Docket Number BC-2017-03960.