AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

NOV 0 41998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01100 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He  be  restored  to  the  grade  of  colonel  (0-6) and  that  he  be 
retired  in  that  grade  with  all  appropriate  retirement  pay 
retroactive to 1 December 1996. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

As  a  result of  a  Commander directed  inquiry, he  was  forced  to 
take an early  (involuntary) active duty retirement on 1 December 
1996.  This was before he had an opportunity to attain the three 
years of  colonel  (0-6) man days that would  have  allowed him  to 
retire in the grade of colonel.  Applicant states that according 
to AFI 36-3203,  "Reserve officers who apply for retirement under 
Title 10 U.S.C  8911, after being told they will be released from 
active duty involuntarily, retire in  the  highest grade held  on 
active  duty  satisfactorily  for  at  least  six  (6)  months." 
Applicant  states that  he  had  satisfactorily completed over  six 
months in the grade of colonel. 

In support of his appeal, applicant submits newspaper articles, a 
copy  of  a  request  to  the  DoD  Inspector General  (IG) ,  subject: 
"Reopening of Investigation into Funeral Fly over", and a copy of 
an Air Force Times article with regard to individuals disciplined 
for unauthorized fly over. 

Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Reserve of the 
Air  Force on 6  June 1970.  He was subsequently promoted  to  the 
Reserve grade of colonel effective 1 March 1995. 
Applicant  was  subsequently  retired  on  1 December  1996  in  the 
grade of lieutenant colonel. 

The  remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application, 
extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in 
the letter prepared  by  the appropriate office of the Air  Force 
Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR).  Accordingly, there is no 
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief, Military Personnel Division, HQ  AFRC/DPM, recommends 
the  application  be  denied  based  on  the  legal  review  from  HQ 
AFRC/JAG  and their reasons for denial.  The AFRC/JAG states that 
they  believe  the  basic  premise  of  applicant's  application  is 
fatally flawed and his application should be denied. 

A  copy of  the  Air  Force  evaluation, with  attached HQ AFRC/JAG 
evaluation, is attached at Exhibit C. 

The  Director  of  Personnel  Program  Management,  HQ  ARPC/DPAR, 
states that  the  applicant  completed  20 years, 8  months  and  22 
days of creditable active duty service.  This service qualified 
him  for  retired  pay  under  the  provisions of  Title  10,  U.S.C., 
Section 8911.  To be eligible to retire in the grade of colonel 
under this section, a member must  have  served satisfactorily on 
active duty for a minimum of three  ( 3 )   years unless involuntarily 
separated from active duty.  Applicant completed six  ( 6 )   months 
on active duty in the grade of colonel, however, since he was not 
involuntarily separated from active duty the three-year time in 
grade  (TIG) applies.  There is no indication in his record that 
he  was  ever  advised  he  would  be  involuntarily  separated which 
would  have  allowed  him  to receive  retired pay  in the grade  of 
colonel. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 

They recommend the applicant's request be denied. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations,  with  attachments,  were 
forwarded to applicant's counsel on 12 May  1998 for review and 
response. 
Counsel  submitted  a  ten  page  response,  with 
attachments, which is attached at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted a11 remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

2 

3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidefice  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we  are not  persuaded  that he  should be  restored to 
the grade of  colonel and  retired  in that grade with  retirement 
pay  retroactive  to  1 December  1996.  His  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  note  that  the  applicant  was 
promoted  and  had  assumed  the  grade  of  colonel  effective  on 
1 March 1995.  As stated by HQ ARPC/DPAR, there is no indication 
in the applicant's record that the applicant was ever advised he 
would  be  involuntarily retired.  Applicant  also stated that he 
was not  technically told  that he would be  released from active 
duty involuntarily.  It appears that he could have continued to 
serve in the Reserve grade of colonel and retire in that grade. 
However, he voluntarily submitted a request for retirement on his 
own and  clearly did  not  serve the  required number of  years to 
retire  in  that  grade. 
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.  Therefore,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought. 
4.  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  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 29 September 1998, under the provisions of 
AFI 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 .  

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Mar 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit  B.  Applicant's Microfiche Records. 
Exhibit  C.  Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated  8 Sep 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPAR, dated  9 Mar 98. 
Exhibit  E.  Letter, AFBCMR,  dated 12 May 98. 
Exhibit  F.  Counsel's Letter, dated 28 Aug 98, w/atchs. 

d + C W  

VAUG N E. SCHLUNZ 
Panel Chair