AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NO: 96-02398 
COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

ST  2  8 

Applicant requests that he be  allowed to reenter active duty, or 
in the alternative, his  records be  corrected to reflect that he 
did  not  turn  down  an  assignment  but  was  forced  to  retire. 
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A. 

The appropriate  Air  Force offices evaluated applicant's request 
and  provided  advisory  opinions  to  the  Board  recommending  the 
application be  denied  (Exhibit C) .  The  advisory  opinions were 
forwarded to the  applicant for review and  response  (Exhibit D). 
Applicant's  response is attached at Exhibit E. 

After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the 
available  evidence  of  record, we  find  insufficient  evidence  of 
error or injustice to warrant corrective action.  The facts and 
opinions  stated in the  advisory opinions appear  to be  based  on 
the evidence of  record and have not been adequately rebutted by 
applicant. 
Absent  persuasive  evidence  applicant  was  denied 
rights  to  which  entitled,  appropriate  regulations  were  not 
followed, or appropriate standards were  not applied, we  find no 
basis to disturb the existing record. 

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 

The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. 
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and 
will  only be  reconsidered upon  the presentation  of new relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 

Members of the Board Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Mr. Joseph T. Wagner, 
and  Mr.  Richard  A.  Peterson,  considered  this  application  on 
16 October 1997, in accordance with  the provisions  of Air  Force 
Instruction 36-2603, and the governin 
0, U.S.C. 1552. 

C. SAUNDERS 
Chairman 

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinions 
D. 
E.  Applicant's Response 

AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

WASHINOTON, DC 

22 November  1996 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM:  HQ USAF/DPXFC 

1040 Air Force Pentagon 
Washington DC 20330-1040 

ction of Military Record 

as requested he be allowed to re-enter 

1.  Requested Action:  Retired USAF 
active duty service with the Air Force in the rank of Captain and that all time spent in retirement 
be credited towards time in grade (TIG). 
2.  Basis for Request:  Member contends that he was unfairly treated as a prior service officer 
under the Officer Volunteer Assignment System (OVAS).  Specifically, OVAS selected only 
oficers  with  15 years or more TAFMS as non-volunteers for overseas assignments. 
argues that this rule placed an unfair burden on himself and other prior sew 

3.  Background: The Oficer Volunteer Assignment System which existed from  1991 until Feb 
1995 did select only officers with 15 years TAFMS as non-volunteers to meet requirements 
when there were no volunteers.  However, in light 
organizations, a review of OVAS was conducted b 
Fairfield Study findings resulted in several significant policy changes including the deletion of 
the 15 year non-volunteer rule.  These changes went into effect 1 February 1995 and OVAS was 
renamed the Officer Assignment System (OM). 

ected to retire in lieu of taking an assignment in January  1995.  de 
5 with 20 years, 7 months and 22 days of service.  He entered the 

e 

to December *he 

an enlisted member in April 1975; from  1977 to  198 1 he was assigned to 
om July 
sioned on  10 June 1986; from June 1986 to April  1990 
his only overseas 
AFB, 
ber 1989 and was 
nged to 24/12 on 
was initially assigned on a 24/12 month tour, 
ed after the tour length was changed back to 

TX; and from April  1990 to April  199 1 he served at- 
assignment.  The tour length for Pana 
changed back to 36/24 on  1 June 1990; 
however,  10 months of his assignme 
36/24 and he had the option of electing the accompanied tour.  Total time served in Panama was 

served as a recruiter in North Syracuse, NY; he 
AFB, 

t- 

\ 

-PI months and 2 
retirement on 

as reassigned to Griffbs AFB from  14 

1 until his 

2 

selected for a second overseas tour as a non-volunteer in January 1995 prior 

995 change which deleted the 15 year non-volunteer rule.  At that time he 

elected to retire in lieu of taking an assignment to Italy. 

5.  Discussion:  OVAS did not single out prior service officers per se, for it applied to all officers 
with  15 years or more service. 
ntention that it was an “unfair” policy does not 
have merit, as the policy appli 
ice and non-prior service officers alike.  He 
15 years or more TAFMS.  The policy 
was treated in the same mann 
effective date of  1 February 1995 deleting the 15 year rule was arbitrary and was implemented 
without regard to its affect on prior service personnel.  There were other o 
volunteers in January 1995 who elected to continue to serve and not retire. 
e believed procedures were no 
exercised his prerogativ 
portunity to return to active duty at this time would 
acceptable.  To provide 
e under OVAS rules, including his fellow prior 
be a disservice to those w 
service officers. 
6.  Recommendation:  Disapprove 

equest. 

on- 

PHILIP M. ODbM, Major, USAF 
Chief, AF Assignment & Class Policy 

U.S. AIR FORCE B 

1 9 4 7 -  1 9 9 7  

u 

1

.

 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF  T H E   A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   A I R   FORCE  P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H   A I R   FORCE  B A S E   T E X A S  

4 December 1996 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPRP 

550 C Street West Ste 11 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-471 3 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records 

d A c h .  The applicant is requesting he be allowed to re-enter active duty or 

that his records reflect he was forced to retire rather than face continued unfair treatment. 

-. 

Applicant’s contention that he was unfairly treated has been addressed 
by HQ USAFDPXFC.  We defer to their advisory in this regard.  However, since all retirement 
are voluntary (unless an officer is required by law to mandatorily retire) and applicant’s DD 
Form 2 14 states he voluntarily retired in item 28, we cannot recommend his records reflect he 
was forced to retire. 

Recommendation. Disapprove that portion of applicantion that addresses a “forced” 
retirement.  We defer to the recommendation by HQ USAF/DPXFC concerning applicant’s 
claim of unfair treatment.  Should the AFBCMR approve this request and direct reinstatement, 
we will rescind applicant’s retirement order. 

MARY DAUPHINE, GS-9 
Programs & Procedures Branch 
Directorate of Pers Prog Mgmt