RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00274
 					COUNSEL:  NONE
					HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be retired in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col, O-5).


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His retired rank was unjustly excluded for a Time-in-Grade (TIG) 
waiver.  He had over 25 months TIG at the time of his retirement.  

There is an 8 month gap between the effective dates of the Fiscal 
Year (FY12) through FY14 waiver programs.  The conditions 
requiring these programs were the same before, during and after 
these periods.  He should be permitted to retain his grade of Lt 
Col in retirement for fulfilling the same requirements as officers 
who retired 3 months before and 5 months after him.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge 
from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 1 Dec 
12 retirement, reflects that he was promoted to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel effective 1 Nov 10.  


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  There is no evidence of error in 
his record or evidence that he was treated in a manner different 
from his contemporaries.  It would not be fair to allow him to 
retire in the grade of Lt Col when others in similar situations 
were not.  

The applicant submitted a request for a TIG waiver which was 
returned without action on 14 Feb 12.  The SAFPC declined to 
review the case since TIG waivers were available to the Service 
Secretaries and were being offered through the established force 
management program.  A review of his record indicates he was 
briefed on this information and signed a statement electing to 
retire in the grade of Major (Maj, O-4).  

For the past several years, the Secretary of the Air Force 
authorized the use of force shaping/management programs to offer 
waivers to separation or retirement restrictions to certain 
eligible members to meet Congressionally-mandated end strength.  
Prior to the submission of his retirement application, the 
FY12 Expanded Officer Voluntary Force Management Program was 
announced.  PSDM 11-05 dated 6 Dec 11 outlined programs available 
to officers in certain competitive categories or specialties.  The 
TIG waiver program allowed certain Lt Cols to request retirement 
with no less than 2 years TIG and be retired in the grade of Lt 
Col; however, under the FY12 program parameters, the retirement 
must have been effective no later than 1 Sep 12.  

The FY13 Force Management program was not announced until 1 Feb 
13 through PSDM 13-09.  In the FY13 program, the TIG waiver 
program was also offered to eligible officers, however, 
retirements had to be effective no earlier than 1 May 13 and no 
later than 1 Sep 13.  

The applicant was briefed on the TIG requirement and voluntarily 
elected to retire in the grade of Maj.  He could have elected to 
delay his retirement which would have allowed him to request a TIG 
waiver under the parameters of the FY13 program, or complete the 
required TIG; however, he made the choice to retire effective 
1 Dec 12 in the grade of Maj.  

A complete copy of the DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 15 May 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.  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 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 the 
rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant 
has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the 
victim of an error or 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-2014-00274 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 14 Jan 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 26 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 May 14.