ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 95-01906 

MAR  3  1  @@ 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED: Yes 

RESUME OF CASE: 

In a application dated 10 May 1995, applicant requested that the 
comments  in  Blocks  111,  IV  and  VI  of  the  Officer  Performance 
Report  (OPR) closing  6  February  1990 be  removed, he  be  given 
consideration by SSB for the Calendar Year 1992C  (CY92C), CY93B, 
and  CY94A boards, his  separation under the Voluntary Separation 
Incentive (VSI) program be canceled and he be reinstated into the 
Regular Air  Force.  On  10 September  1996, the Board  considered 
and denied his requests. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Record  of  Proceedings  is  attached  at 
Exhibit H. 

In a letter dated 23 February 1997, applicant provided additional 
documentation pertaining to his contention that miscounseling and 
unclear  guidance  facilitated  his  unwanted  departure  from  the 
military.  He  requests  reconsideration  in  light  of  additional 
evidence he is now submitting. Tabs 1 through 4  of his submittal 
are new documents. Included is another statement from the major 
at his  former military personnel  flight  (MPF), who affirms that 
the applicant received negligent counseling and unclear guidance. 
Tabs 5 through 8 were previously submitted with Exhibit A. 

Applicant's  complete  reconsideration  request  is  attached  at 
Exhibit I. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Programs  and  Procedures  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPRP, 
reviewed applicant's request for reconsideration and recommended 
denial.  While the applicant may have been initially counseled by 
the MPF that he  could apply for a 30 June 1995 separation date, 
the  MPF  later  correctly advised  him  he  must  separate no  later 
than  18 November  1994. MPF  Letter  93-78 dated  29  December 1993 
clearly  states  that  captains  in  the  1983  promotion  year  group 
[like the applicant] must apply no later than 19 August  1994 f o r  
a separation date no later than 18 November 1994. This data was 

continually provided by update message  and by MPF  Letter 94-28. 
The MPF  Letters do not  list once-deferred captains as  eligible 
for VSI; therefore, it  is clear once-deferred captains or those 
who  became  deferred  by  their  promotion  boards  would  not  be 
eligible to apply.  The applicant himself admits calling the Air 
Force  Personnel  Center  (AFPC) in  July  1994  and  being  advised 
once-deferred officers were not eligible for the program. He also 
admits he processed  the application even after being advised by 
AFPC in July that once-deferred captains would not be eligible to 
apply for VSI. Even when he discovered his separation under VSI 
must be no later than 1 8   November 1994 versus 30 June 1995, he 
continued with  the  application.  Although  he  repeatedly states 
his  decision  to  apply  for  VSI  was  involuntary,  based  on 
discussions  with  others,  he  voluntarily  applied  for  VSI  and 
continued  his  application  when  he  was  provided  the  correct 
information.  Information on these  drawdown programs  was  widely 
disseminated throughout  the Air  Force population. Being  in  the 
Public  Affairs  field, he  had  ready  access  to  this  information 
since he would have been responsible to advertise the programs to 
the base. Therefore, his request should be denied. 
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is 
provided at Exhibit J. 

HQ AFPC/DPPPOC and HQ AFPC/DPPPA reviewed this appeal and  state 
that  applicant's  additional  documents  do  not  alter  the 
evaluations and recommendations made  in their earlier advisories 
(see Exhibits C and E). Complete copies of their latest responses 
are attached at Exhibit K. 

The  Senior Attorney-Advisory, HQ  AFPC/JA,  also  evaluated  this 
case  and  argues  that  the  applicant  has  not  satisfied  the 
requirements for reconsideration.  Should the Board nevertheless 
consider applicant's claim, the  author  would  recommend denial. 
The  applicant,  quite  simply,  has  failed  to  take  adult 
responsibility for his own actions.  He blames his  15nvoluntary 
separationI1 on  the  alleged  faulty  counseling  he  received  from 
Colonel G--.  However, he has provided absolutely no proof other 
than his own and another individual's hearsay statements that he 
was  "rniscounseledl1 to the point  that would have  required him  to 
have applied for separation via VSI.  In a new twist, one of the 
supporting statements seem to suggest that the applicant was the 
victim  of  miscounseling  regarding  eligibility over  the  program 
itself; L e . ,  the applicant found out too late that had he waited 
to meet the board he would have still been eligible to apply for 
VSI.  This statement is wrong---both as to its characterization 
of  the  eligibility  requirements  for  VSI  and  in  characterizing 
applicant's understanding of those requirements. As clarified by 
HQ AFPC/DPPRP in its recent advisory, officers once deferred were 
not  eligible for VSI---and  applicant  acknowledged that whatever 
misunderstanding  he  may  have  had  with  respect  to  the  program, 
that misunderstanding was clarified before the final application 
was made.  He has failed to prove that his decision to accept VSI 
and separate from the Air Force was anything other than his own. 

2 

95-01906 

He  has  failed  to prove  that  he  was  coerced, misled  or  treated 
differently than any other persons in that situation. Therefore, 
the author recommends applicant's request be denied. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit L. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

I 

After  being  granted two  extensions, applicant  responded  to  the 
advisory  opinions.  The  miscounseling  and  misinformation  he 
received in late June 1994 regarding the Early Out Programs were 
the catalysts leading to his departure from the military. He was 
told he would not be  promoted and to get out before he met  his 
first  in-the-zone  board  or  risk  being  left  with  nothing.  His 
chances for promotion were only hampered by the contested OPR he 
was  attempting  to  remove  from  his  records. At  no  time  did  he 
initiate any discussion reference his leaving the military as he 
had  no  plans  to  separate.  But  for  the  conditions  that  were 
incorrectly presented  to him, it was  illogical for him  to have 
taken  the  action  he  did.  He  was  erroneously  told  that,  once 
passed  over  for  promotion,  he  was  no  longer  eligible  to 
participate  in  any  of  the  Early  Out  Programs. He  asserts  that 
statement is not  true. He contends it was reasonable for him  to 
rely on the advice he  received from Col  G---, the former 

- 

 

e

and  his  MPF.  Not  until  he  read  the 
b
s
article that twice-deferred officers 
were  still eligible  for early  retirement did  he  realize he  had 
been misguided. Had he  fully understood that he could have been 
passed over twice  for promotion and-still remained eligible for 
the  Early  Out  Programs, he would  have  remained on active duty. 
Given the correct  information, he would have at  least opted  for 
the opportunity  f o r   a  15-year retirement. He would  have been  a 
fool  to  accept  severance pay  in  lieu of  VSI/SSB, and  he  would 
have accepted the  15-year retirement over either VSI/SSB  had  he 
known  he  did  not  lose  his  eligibility  to  do  so.  It  is  a 
misrepresentation for the Air Force evaluation to suggest that he 
should have been  able  to  decipher information even  some of  the 
experts couldn't handle. He was not a volunteer for the Early Out 
Program. 

The  12 attachments  to  his  rebuttal are  duplicates  of  documents 
previously provided  at  other Exhibits  and  are  so  identified at 
the  bottom  of  their pages.  Applicant's complete  response, with 
attachments, is at Exhibit 0. 

3 

95 -01 906 

' 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's 
submission,  including  the  supporting  statements,  we  are  not 
persuaded that his appeal should be granted.  Applicant contends 
Col  G---  advised  him  that  he  would  not  be  promoted  without  a 
master's  degree;  that  this  single  deferral  would  render  him 
ineligible for the Early-Out Programs; and that he should get out 
before  he  was  left  with  nothing.  He  further  argues  that  the 
misleading, incorrect and faulty information he received from Col 
G- - -  and the MPF  regarding the Early-Out Programs facilitated his 
unwanted  departure. He  asserts that  he was not  a volunteer for 
the Early-Out Program because, given the correct information, he 
would have  decided differently. However, the evidence of  record 
and applicant's own actions indicate otherwise. He has submitted 
no corroborating statement from Col G---  regarding his promotion 
chances  and  eligibility  for  the  VSL.  We  did  note  thaC  in  his 
10 February 1995 letter to Col G---, the applicant refers to Col 
G- - - Is having apparently denied telling him that once passed over 
he  was  no  longer  eligible  for  the  Early-Out  Programs.  As 
indicated  by  the  Air  Force,  the  information  the  applicant 
received  regarding  the  VSI  was  correct.  Because  of  his  year 
group,  he  had  to  apply  for VSI  by  19  August  1994, which  was 
before the CY94A board convened. As he was correctly advised, if 
he had been considered and not  selected by  the  CY94A board, he 
would  become  ineligible  to  apply  for  the  VSI  program.  If  he 
wanted to take advantage of the VSI program, which he ultimately 
decided to do, he had to act when he did. Even assuming that the 
applicant  was  not  thoroughly  counseled  concerning  all  of  his 
entitlements  initially,  we  note  that  he  received  the  correct 
information in sufficient time to withdraw his VSI  application. 
The  vice  commander  recommended  approval  of  the  applicant's 
request  to  withdraw  his  VSI  application,  and  AFPC  informally 
advises  that  his  request  would  have  been  approved  had  it  been 
submitted.  However, for reasons of his own, the applicant chose 
not to submit his withdrawal request.  Thus, the fact that he did 
not receive consideration for promotion to major on two occasions 
and, if not selected, qualify for early retirement under the TERA 
was due to factors over which he had complete control. 

In  summary,  it  is  our  view  that  the  applicant  has  not 
substantiated a  basis  for  relief.  Applicant's main  thrust  now 
seems to be that he should have been advised he still would have 
been eligible for a 15-year retirement  (under the TERA) with two 
deferrals. Regarding this issue, we  note that  in August  1994 he 
was not  eligible to separate under the TERA because  he  did  not 
have at  least 15 years of  service.  With his enlisted time, and 
including the time that would elapse over two passovers  (assuming 
he was  nonselected), the applicant would become eligible for the 
TERA  on  30  November  1995. 
We  fail  to  see  how  an  MPF  is 
responsible  for  anticipating  future  events  and  projecting  a 
member's ultimate  eligibility  for programs  without  that  member 
also  having  some  responsibility.  Granted,  this  may  require 
"asking the  right  questions,"  but  in this  regard  the  applicant 

4 

95-01 906 

. 

was no more burdened than were other Air Force personnel seeking 
information  during  the  drawdown.  In  the  final  analysis,  the 
applicant has failed to substantiate his contention that he was 
somehow forced out of the Air Force because of miscounseling and 
misinformation.  Regarding  the  contested  OPR,  he  has  not 
established  that  it  should  be  amended  or  voided  and  that  SSB 
consideration by the CY94A board  is warranted. We therefore find 
no basis upon which to overturn the original Board's- decision to 
deny applicant's request in its entirety. 

The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give 
the  Board  a  clear  understanding  of  the  issues  involved  and  a 
personal  appearance, with  or  without  legal  counsel, would  not 
have  materially  added  to  that  understanding.  Therefore,  the 
request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice; that  the  application  was  denied  without  a  personal 
appearance; and  that  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 this application in 
Executive  Session on  3  March  1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Mr. Joseph T. Wagner, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

I 

Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 24 Sep 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit I.  Applicant's Letter, dated 23 Feb 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit J.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRP, dated 23 Jul 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit K.  Letters, HQ AFPC/DPPPA &  HQ AFPC/DPPPOC, both 
Exhibit L.  Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 4 Aug 97. 
Exhibit M.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Aug 97. 

dated 31 J u l   97. 

5 

95 - 01 906 

Exhibit  N.  Letters, Applicant,  dated 1 0   Sep &  7 Oct  97; 
Exhibit  0 .   Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Nov  97, w/atchs. 

and AFBCMR, dated 12 Sep &  8 O c - t   97. 

LEROY T. BASEMAN  - 
Panel Chair 

6 

95 -01906 

. 

,

, g . g  

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPRP 

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

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records -)  = ~ l ? c -

-

,

 

DISCUSSION: 

a.  The applicant’s additional statements do not change our original position that 

he voluntarily elected the Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI).  The applicant claims he 
wouldn’t have applied for VSI if not pressured to do so and Military Personnel Flight (MPF) had 
not miscounseled him.  While the applicant may have been initially counseled by the MPF he 
could apply for a 30 Jun 95 separation date, the MPF later correctly advised member he must 
separate no later than 18 Nov 94.  Military Personnel Flight Letter (MPFL) 93-78, Atch 2, para 
2a, dated 29 Dec 93 (Atch l), clearly stated, “Line captains in the 1983 promotion year group 
(DOR to captain of 1 Jan 87 thru 3 1 Dec 87) must apply no later than 19 Aug 94 for a separation 
date to be effective no later than 18 Nov 94.”  This criteria was continually provided by update 
messages (Atch 2 - 5) and by a Phase I1 MPFL 94-28 (Atch g) dated 8 Jun 94.  The MPFLs do 
not list once deferred captains as eligible; therefore, it is clear once deferred captains or those 
who became deferred by their promotion boards, would not be eligible to apply for VSI. The 
applicant himself admits calling the Air Force Personnel Center (formally Air Force Military 
Personnel Center) in Jul94 and being advised once deferred officers were not eligible for the 
program. 

b.  The applicant indicates by his own statements (items 35 - 39), he processed the 

application even after being advised by AFPC in Jul that once deferred captains would not be 
eligible to apply for VSI.  Even when the applicant discovered his separation under VSI must be 
no later than 18 Nov 94 versa 30 Jun 95, the applicant continued with application. 

RECOMMEND ATION : Denial 

a.  Though the applicant repeatedly states his decision to applied for VSI was 

involuntary, based on discussions with others, he voluntarily applied for VSI.  Even during the 
application process, when he was provided the correct information, he continued his application 
to separate under VSI. 

b.  Information concerning these types of drawdown programs were widely 

disseminated to the Air Force population through bulletins, base newspapers, and so on.  The 
applicant, being in the Public Affairs field, had ready access to this information since he would 
have been responsible to advertise the programs to the base. 

c.  Therefore, we recommend denial of applicant’s application. 

DAVID E. EDWARDS, Lt Col USAF 
Chief, Programs and Procedures Branch 
Directorate, Personnel Program Management 

Attachments 
1.  Extract of MFPL 93-78,29 Dec 93 
2.  Update Message #2,2823002 Jan 94 
3.  Update Message #7,2423002 May 94 
4.  Update Message #8,2615002 May 94 
5.  Extract of MPFL 94-28,8 Jun 94