AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-03112 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

AUG 1 4  1998 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
The  Retirement  Order,  AC-2109, 
corrected  to  show  he  was  retired 
colonel rather than major. 

dated  27  January 
in  the  grade  of 

1976,  be 
lieutenant 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error 
and/or  an  injustice are  contained  in his  complete  submission, 
which is at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant was relieved from active duty and retired for physical 
disability at 30% on 17 February 1976.  He had 16 years, 4 months 
and 27 days of active service and 20 years, 8 months and 16 days 
of  service  for  basic  pay.  The  Retirement  Order  in  question 
reflects  the  highest  grade  held  on  active  duty  as  major,  a 
retirement  grade  of  major,  and  a  Reserve  Grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel. 

The  remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application, 
extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in 
the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. 
Accordingly,  there  is  no  need  to  recite  these  facts  in  this 
Record of Proceedings. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Superintendent, HQ  AFPC/DPPPOO,  reviewed  this  appeal  and 
states that applicant was on active duty from 19  March 1962  to 
17 February  1976  and his highest  grade held  was major.  He may 
have met  a  Reserve promotion board  to  lieutenant  colonel, but 
there is no indication he ever was promoted. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The Director of Personnel, HQ ARPC/DPAR, also evaluated the case 
and indicates that according to AFR  36-11, Section D, Promotion 
of  US  Air  Force  Reserve  (USAFR) Officers  to  Fill  Unit  and 
Mobilization  (Mobilization Augmentee)  Grade  Vacancies,  if  an 
officer who has been selected for promotion under this section, 
as applicant was, enters extended active duty  (EAD) before being 
promoted to fill the vacancy, his name will be  removed from the 
recommended list. Applicant never fulfilled the intent of a unit 
vacancy promotion by continuing to serve on EAD  until 16 February 
1976 and eventually retired on 17 February 1976. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  states  the  information  provided  by  ARPC/DPAR  is 
incorrect or does not apply to him because he was not a member of 
the  Ready  Reserves  and  his  name  was  not  removed  from  the 
recommended promotion list since his retirement orders show that 
he has the permanent Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel. 

A complete copy of applicant's response is at Exhibit F. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  USAF  Physical  Disability  Division,  HQ  AFPC/DPPD, 
states that Title 10, USC, Section 1372 provides that  a member 
being retired for disability is retired in the grade in which the 
member is serving at time of retirement or the Reserve grade held 
by  the member  at  time of  retirement, if  it  is higher than  the 
grade in which serving on active duty. The Reserve grade must be 
a valid USAFR or Air National Guard  (ANG) grade that is still in 
effect  at  the  time  of  retirement. At  the  time  his  retirement 
order  was  accomplished,  their  office  was  provided  with  the 
information  he  had  a  Reserve  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel. 
AFPC/DPAR%  advisory  explains  that  the  applicant  was  never 
promoted to lieutenant colonel while  in the Reserves.  Further, 
applicant states in his  [rebuttal] IIMy name was removed from the 
recommended promotion list because  I entered active duty before 
being promoted  to  fill the vacancy. 
[ T h i s   i s   incorrect- - - the 
a p p l i c a n t   was  s t a t i n g   what  he  f e l t   the  RRPC/DPAR  a d v i s o r y   was 
i m p l y i n g .   H i s   sentence  is  p r e f a c e d   w i t h   "HQ  ARPC/DPAR 
l e t t e r  
s t a t e s   or i m p l i e s   t h a t   .  .  . 

Denial is recommended. 

2 

96-03112 

A complete copy of the additional advisory is at Exhibit G. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  reviewed  the  additional  evaluation and  reiterates he 
had  the  Reserve  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  at  time  of 
retirement.  He  was  not  in  the  Reserves.  He  held  a  Reserve 
commission from the AF  Reserve Officer Training Corp  (ROTC) and 
was on active duty at the time he was selected for promotion. In 
accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 1372, he should be retired 
in the grade of lieutenant colonel. 
Applicantls complete response is at Exhibit I. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

The Deputy Chief, General Law Division, HQ USAF/JAG, reviewed the 
appeal and states that it appears the error in applicant's record 
is, in fact, the present contents of Block 13  [of the Retirement 
Order].  He was selected  for promotion to lieutenant colonel in 
1975,  but  there is no evidence the new commission was  tendered 
and  accepted. 
There  is,  for  example,  no  promotion  order 
elevating him to lieutenant colonel  (as there is for the grades 
of  captain  and  major)  and  none  of  his  records,  save  the 
retirement order, reflect such a promotion or any service at the 
higher grade.  In  short, he  never  h e l d   the  grade of  lieutenant 
colonel. Whoever made the Block 13 entry on the Retirement Order 
had  incorrect  information. Regardless  whether  he  was  selected 
under  AFR  36-11,  Section  D,  to  fill  a  unit  or  mobilization 
augmentation  grade  vacancy,  but  then  removed  from  the  list 
because  he  was  on  E m ,   or  under  Section C by  a  central  board 
(which did promote EAD  officers), he was never actually promoted. 
And  whether  he  knew it  or not, his Reserve  commission and  EAD 
status made him a member of the Ready Reserve. One other comment: 
Title  10, USC,  subsections  1372(3)  and  (4) permit  disability 
retirement in the grade for which the member was merely selected 
for promotion if the physical disability for which the member is 
retired is discovered as a result of a physical examination f o r  
that  promotion.  In  this  case, however, this  connection  is  not 
established.  According  to  the  2  December  1975  clinical 
record/narrative summary [ a t t a c h e d   t o   this a d v i s o r y ]  , applicant s 
illness dated back  to  late 1967 when  he  was  first hospitalized 
for  the  condition  and  there  is  no  indication  the  course  of 
treatment which  led  to  eventual  retirement  had  anything  to  do 
with a promotion fitness examination. Denial is recommended. 
A  complete copy of the additional evaluation, with attachment, is 
at Exhibit J. 

3 

96-03112 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A complete copy of the additional evaluation was forwarded to him 
on 11 March 1998 for review and comment within  30 days.  As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicantls 
submission, we are not persuaded that his retirement order should 
reflect  he  was  retired  in  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel. 
Applicant's contentions are duly noted; however, we do not  find 
these assertions, in and by  themselves, sufficiently persuasive 
to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. We therefore 
agree  with  the  recommendations of  the Air  Force and  adopt  the 
rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the 
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered 
either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent 
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis 
to recommend granting the relief sought. 

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  23 June 1998 under  the  provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair 
Mr. Dana J. Gilmour, Member 
Mr. Allen Beckett, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

4 

96-03112 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I. 
Exhibit J. 
Exhibit K. 

DD Form 149, dated 17 Oct 96, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, dated 5 Feb 97, w/atch. 
Letter, HQ ARPC/DPAR, dated 7 Apr 97. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Apr 97. 
Letter, Applicant, dated 22 May 97, w/atch. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 27 Oct 97 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Nov 97. 
Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Nov 97. 
Letter, HQ USAF/JAG, dated 6 Mar 98, w/atchs. 

Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Mar 98. w2* 
WAYNE R. GRACIE ?--- 

Panel Chair 

5 

96 - 03112