AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

fiETB2 1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00329 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLTCANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1  Reinstatement  in  the  active  Reserve  retroactive  to  his 
mandatory separation date  (MSD) of 29 November 1997. 
2. His  Retention/Retirement  (R/R) year  be  extended  to  7  May 
1998 
3. He be considered for promotion by the next lieutenant colonel 
promotion board as a Line of the Air Force officer, rather than a 
Medical Service Corps (MSC) officer, or in the alternative, 
4 .   He be  retired under  10 U.S,C. 12731a(a) based  on completion 
of 15 years of service, 

PPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He was unfairly considered for promotion by the Fiscal Year 1997 
(FY97) and FY98 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Boards as a 
health professions officer, rather than a line officer, although 
he was serving as a Admissions Liaison Officer  ( A L O ) .  
The  applicant also  contends  that  his  R/R  year was  prematurely 
ended 7 months short of his meeting the 18-year sanctuary due to 
his  MSD,  although  he  had  earned  the  necessary  points  for  a 
satisfactory year of Federal service for retirement purposes. 
In regard to his promotion  consideration, the  applicant states 
that he  entered active duty as a line officer in 1973, and was 
later  transferred  to  the  MSC.  He  left  active  duty  as  a MSC 
officer in 1980 and retained the MSC designation while serving as 
a category  IIAt1  reservist assigned to the  171st ARW  as a clinic 
administrator, He  elected  to  become  inactive  while  completing 
graduate school and returned to the Reserves as an -0. 
An  ARPC 
official advised him that if he had to compete against other MSC 
officers  (as opposed  to  line  officers),  he  had  very  little 
opportunity for promotion since he  had not  served as a MSC  for 
more than 14 years.  The MSC officers selected were a l l   category 
IIAII  reservists who were working in their units as MSC officers. 
Not wanting to be limited again in competing for promotion in FY 

. 

98, he requested to be  reappointed as a line officer to prevent 
his competing again in the health professions category.  He was 
advised  by  ARPC  that  even  though  the  ALO  appointment  rules 
changed  in  1994  and  no  health  professions  officer  can  be 
appointed as primary duty ALO's due to the aforementioned adverse 
promotion ramifications, they would not let him be reappointed to 
the  line officer category.  In addition, ARPC advised him  that 
the ALO Air Force Specialty Code  (AFSC) '95AO"  was not a llrealll 
AFSC and would not, in itself, be grounds for reappointment as a 
line officer.  He  feels that  he  would  have  been promoted  to 
the grade-'of lieutenant colonel if he had been permitted to 
be  reappointed as a  line officer and allowed to compete in 
the line officer category. 
Concerning his R/R  year, the applicant states that based on his 
excellent  record  and  the  fact  that  he  accumulated  more  than 
enough points  to earn a creditable 18th year, his  17 years and 
nearly 7 months of service should be rounded up to 18 years which 
would put him in the 18-year sanctuary and allow him to return to 
active  status  and  serve  to  the  20-year point.  As  the  first 
primary duty ALO  to serve as Liaison Officer Director  (LOD) in 
his area in quite some time, he  feels that he has invested the 
time  and  energy  required  to  make  some  important  improvements; 
however, a great deal more needs to be accomplished and he wishes 
to  continue  serving  as  an  LOD.  The  Air  Force  Academy  would 
permit  him  to remain in the LOD  role if  he  were  reinstated to 
active  reserve  status.  Although  no  one  is  indispensable  and 
their area would continue to function with someone else servincr 
as  LOD,  he  and  several 
icers  who  know  of  hi; 
circumstances feel  that  the 
-area 
would  be  best 
served if he remained in the 
In support of  the appeal, the applicant has provided  copies of 
his Officer Performance Reports  (OPRs)  and a statement from the 
Associate Director of Admissions for Enrollment Programs, 
The applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A .  

On 19 May 1973, the applicant was commissioned in the Regular Air 
Force. 
The applicant was  released from active duty and  transferred to 
the Air Force Reserve, MSC, on 19 May 1980. 
On  20  March  1985, the  applicant  was  assigned  to  the  Inactive 
Status List Reserve Section (ISLRS), 
On 8 May 1989, the applicant was reassigned from the ISLRS to an 
ALO position at the Air Force Academy as an MSC officer. 

2 

The applicant was  considered and not  selected for promotion by 
the  FY97  and  FY98  Air  Force  Line  and  Health  Professions 
Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Boards  as  an  MSC  officer. 
In 
accordance with 10 U.S.C. 8846 (a) , the applicant was assigned an 
MSD of 29 November 1997  (one year and 90 days after the date on 
which he would have been promoted if he had been recommended by 
the first selection board that considered him. 
During the R/R year ending 7 May 1997, the applicant was awarded 
18 Active Duty Training  (IDT) points, 50 Inactive Duty Training 
(IDT) points, and 15 membership points, for a total of 94 points 
for retirement.  In addition, the R/R year ending 7 May 1997 was 
considered a year of satisfactory Federal service. 
During  the  partial  R/R  year  ending  24  November  1997,  the 
applicant was awarded 25 ADT points and 27 IDT points for a total 
of 52 points for retirement. 
The applicant was separated from the active Reserve and entered 
the  Honorary  Retired  Reserve  on  the  29  November  1997.  The 
applicant completed a total of  17 years of  satisfactory Federal 
service for retirement purposes. 

The Staff Judge Advocate, ARPCIJA, reviewed this application and 
states that  there  are  two main  component's to  the  applicant's 
argument  that  an  error  or  injustice  occurred  when  his  second 
deferral for promotion to the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel 
resulted, under  the  provisions  of  the  now-obsolete  (but still 
applicable to his case) 10 U.S.C. 8846, in his being offered to 
elect  between  transfer  to  the  Honorary  Retired  Reserve  or 
discharge on 29 November 1997 -  his status as ALO and his failure 
to attain 18 satisfactory years before that date. 
ARPC/JA  states  that  the  authorization  of  "95AO Non-EAD  [non- 
extended active duty] USRFR Academy or Civil Air Patrol Liaisont1 
is a reporting identifier.  Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2105, 
Attachment 3 ,   defines the term as follows: "Reporting identifiers 
identify  authorizations  and  individual  officers  not  otherwise 
identifiable in the classification structure.  They do not have 
specialty  descriptions.  The  attachment  directs  how  the  95AO 
classification is to be used:  VJse this identifier to report the 
Duty Air Force Specialty Code  (AFSC) of non-extended active duty 
(non-EAD) Reserve officers who are participating in the Academy 
and Civil Air Patrol Liaison Programs.  DoD Occupational Group: 
9E.I'  They note that AFI 36-2105, Attachment 3 ,   is the authority 
for the use of the applicant's AFSC as an MSC  officer.  Absent 
the  applicant's reclassification to  another  AFSC,  there  is  no 
authority to reclassify him to the "Line of the Air Force/ 
In regard to the applicant's  R/R  year, ARPC/JA  states that  the 

3 

-. 

R/R year is the period during which he is required by 10 U.S.C. 
12732(a) (2) to complete a one-year period of service and at least 
50  Reserve  retirement points.  If  the  applicant's  statutorily 
imposed MSD  of  29 November 1997 had not  intervened, and he had 
been able to have completed his 18th satisfactory year on 7 May 
1998  (before any  other  MSD  went  into  effect),  the  V8-year 
sanctuary,  created by  10 U. S . C.  12646 (a) , would have prevented 
his  discharge  from  active  status  before  he  had  attained  20 
satisfactory years or  three years from  the  date  he  would  have 
been removed from active status, whichever occurred earlier.  The 
applicant  had  attained  52  Reserve  retirement  points  as  of 
29 November 1997.  The applicant requests a ROPMA interpretation 
or waiver to have his 17 years and nearly seven months of service 
rounded up  to  the  18 years needed  for  sanctuary based  on his 
excellent  service record  and  the  fact  that  he  had  accumulated 
more  than enough points  to earn  a creditable  18th year.  The 
Secretary of the Air Force has not implemented the provisions of 
10 U.S.C.  12731a(a),  effective  until  30  September  1999, which 
create a "Temporary special retirement qualification authority" - 
!'Retirement With At Least 15 Years of Service"--to apply to those 
Air Force Reserve officers I  whose careers  (like the applicant s )  
were terminated, prior to the application of the 10 U.S.C. 12646 
sanctuary, for MSD  reasons. The applicant cannot be granted his 
18th  year  of  satisfactory  service  by  "ROPMA' interpretation". 
Therefore, they recommend denial of his requests. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The Director of Assignments and Readiness, ARPC/DA, reviewed this 
application  and  states  that  they  have  not  found  any  error  or 
injustice to support reconsideration of the events leading up to 
the applicant's  MSD.  Therefore, they recommend the application 
be denied. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that 
in  May  of  1989,  an  oversight  concerning  his  assignment 
eligibility as a primary duty ALO  while holding a AFSC was  made 
by  ARPC.  That oversight was  perpetuated  through  the years as 
neither the Air Force nor he had reason to be  aware of  it.  He 
became cognizant of it in late 1996 through personal inquiries as 
a  result  of  being  deferred  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of 
lieutenant colonel by  the  FY97 board.  When  he  requested  that 
ARPC  rectify  the  oversight  by  re-designating  him  as  a  line 
officer prior  to  the  FY98 board, he  was  incorrectly counseled 
that it was not possible to do so.  The oversight had a definite 
negative impact on his promotion potential as it resulted in him 

4 

having to compete for promotion in a health professions officer 
category, rather than a line officer category for both the FY97 
an FY98 boards even though he had not served as an MSC officer 
since the mid-1980s. 
The  applicant  states that ARPC  fails to address the  fact that 
according  to  current  and  past  assignment eligibility, 'officers 
with medical AFSCs cannot be assigned as primary duty ALO.  The 
applicant notes that in accordance with AFI 36-2017  (Admissions 
Liaison Officer Program) , chapter 3 , paragraph 3  1 , 9 , assignment 
to a medical AFSC disqualifies an officer from primary duty ALO 
duties.  In addition, in 1989, the assignment policy was detailed 
by  AFR  45- 46  which  clearly  stated  that  officers  with  medical 
AFSCs, as well as JAG and Chaplains officers, cannot be assigned 
as primary duty ALOs.  Because of clear and unambiguous language 
in the current and past  regulations, one can easily see how he 
would believe that for all intents and purposes, especially for 
promotion  consideration, the Air  Force would  consider him  as a 
line officer.  He applied to the ALO  program in good faith.  It 
was the Air Force's responsibility to review his application and 
determine  his  eligibility.  It  is  obvious  that  a mistake  was 
made.  He should have been either denied assignment to the ALO 
program based on the aforementioned policy, or more appropriately 
been re-designated a line officer based on a previous line AFSC 
he held earlier in his career.  Instead, the inconsistency with 
regulatory policy came to light only through his efforts when he 
inquired as to the reasons why he was not selected for promotion 
to lieutenant colonel by the FY97 board.  Although he was advised 
at that time by ARPC that he could not be redesignated as a line 
officer prior to the FY98 board since his ALO  position was not a 
I1realtt AFSC but a reporting identifier, he has since been advised 
by ARPC's assignment section, that he could have, and should have 
been  redesignated  as  a  line  officer  based  on  his  prior  line 
officer AFSC. 
The  applicant  states  that  he  was  not  counseled  regarding  the 
negative  impact on his promotion potential  he  would  experience 
when being forced to compete against health professions officers, 
One  high  level official candidly stated that  he  felt  that  his 
promotion  folder  was  used  as  Vannon  fodder"  by  the  Health 
Professions Board due to the lack of recent service as a medical 
officer,  The letters he received from ARPC notifying him of his 
consideration for appointment did not clearly state that he was 
going  to  be  considered  in  the  Health  Professions  Officer 
category.  They simply stated that the Board was the Air  Force 
Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. 
The  applicant notes  that  since  1973, he  had  only one break  in 
service which was due to obtaining his graduate degree which he 
felt  was  required  f o r   both  his  civilian  and  Reserve  careers. 
Prior  to  that,  he  served  6  years  on  active  duty,  in  both 
operations  and  the  medical  field,  including  a  1-year  remote 
assignment. 

I 

5 

The applicant's  complete response, with attachments, is attached 
at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1. 
law or regulations. 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3. Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  to 
warrant his reappointment as a line officer and consideration for 
promotion to the grade of  lieutenant colonel by  Special Review 
Board  (SRB) ,  as a Line of the Air Force officer, rather than a 
(MSC)  officer, for the FY97 and FY98 Air 
Medical  Service Corps 
Force  Line  and  Health  Professions Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection 
Boards.  After  thoroughly reviewing the evidence of  record and 
noting the applicant's  contentions, we believe the applicant has 
provided sufficient evidence that he may not have received fair 
and equitable consideration for promotion by  the FY97 and  FY98 
boards. 
In  this  respect,  we  note  that  at  the  time  of  the 
applicant's  promotion consideration by the FY97 and FY98 boards, 
he had not served as an MSC officer for more  than 14 years and 
was serving as an Admission Liaison Officer.  In view of this, we 
believe  the  applicant's  competitiveness for promotion  may  have 
been  adversely  affected.  While  it  cannot  be  conclusively 
determined  whether  or  not  this  was  the  sole  reason  for  the 
applicant's nonselection for promotion by the boards in question, 
we do believe that it served to deprive him of fair and equitable 
consideration.  We also note that in accordance with AFI 36-2017 
(Admissions Liaison Officer Program), Chapter 3 ,   Paragraph 3.1.9, 
assignment to a medical AFSC disqualifies an officer from primary 
duty ALO  duties.  Therefore, we  recommend he  be  considered  for 
promotion,  as  a  line  officer,  by  SRB  for  the  FY97  and  FY98 
boards. 
4. Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice 
regarding the remainder of applicant's  requests.  The applicant 
contends that his R/R  year was prematurely ended 7 months short 
of his meeting the 18-year sanctuary due to his MSD, although he 
had  earned  the  necessary  points  for  a  satisfactory  year  of 
Federal service for retirement purposes.  We note the R/R year is 
the period during which a member is required to complete a one- 
year period of service and at least 50 Reserve retirement points, 
in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 12732(a) (2).  Although the applicant 
attained 52 Reserve retirement points as of 2 9   November 1997, he 
did not complete the required one-year period of service.  In the 
absence of evidence that the establishment of his R/R year was in 
error or unjust, we  find no reason to change his R/R  year.  The 
applicant  also  requests  that  he  be  retired  under  10  U.S.C. 

6 

~ 

12731a(a)  based  on completion of 15 years of  service; however, 
the Secretary of the Air Force has not implemented the provisions 
of 10 U.S.C. 1273ia(a), to be effective until 30 September 1999. 
As  such, there  is no statutory basis  to provide him  a 15-year 
In  regard  to  the  applicant's  request  for 
retirement. 
reinstatement in the  active Reserve, we  do not  believe, he  has 
provided sufficient evidence to indicate that his separation from 
the  active Reserve was  improper.  The  applicant  was  separated 
based on his statutorily imposed MSD.  Therefore, in the absence 
of  evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting this portion of the applicant's requests. 

- THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 19 May 1980, 
he  was  appointed  as  a line officer, Air  Force Reserve, rather 
than Medical Service Corps. 
It  is  further  recommended  that  his  records  be  considered  for 
promotion to the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel by  Special 
Review  Boards;  that his  record be  evaluated in comparison with 
the  records of  officers who  were  and  were  not  selected by  the 
Fiscal  Year  1997  (E'Y97) and  FY98  Air  Force  Line  and  Health 
Professions  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection Boards;  and  that  the 
recommendations of the Special Review Boards be  forwarded to the 
Air  E'orce  Board  for  Correction  of  Military  Records  at  the 
earliest practicable date  so  that all necessary and  appropriate 
actions may be completed. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 6 August  1 9 9 8 ,   under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Charles E .   Bennett, Panel Chair 
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member 
Ms. Peggy E:.  Gordon, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. €Iorton, Bxamincr  (without vote) 

All  members voted  to correct the records, as recommended. 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

l'he 

Exhibit A .  
Hxhibit B. 
E:xhibit C. 

DI) Form 119, dated 2 9   Jan 9 8 ,   w/atchs. 
Applicantis Master Personnel Records. 
letter, AKPC/JA,  dated 23 Mar 9 8 .  

Exhibit D. 
Exhibit  E. 
Exhibit F. 

Letter, ARPC/DA, dated 27 Mar 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Apr 98. 
Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs. 

U H A R L E S  E.  BENNETT 

Panel Chair 

8 

*. 

-  7 

3, 

'? 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, 0. C. 

DEC 0 8 1998 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-00329 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for 

Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States 
Code (70A Stat 116),  it is directed that: 

officer, Air Force Reserve, rather than Medical Service Corps. 

ilitary records of the Department of the Air For 
be corrected to show that on 19 May 1980, he 

It is M e r  directed that his records be considered for promotion to the Reserve grade of 
lieutenant colonel by Special Review Boards; that his record be evaluated in comparison with the 
records of officers who were and were not selected by the Fiscal Year 1997 (FY97) and FY98 
Air Force Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards; and that the 
recommendations of the Special Review Boards be forwarded to the Air Force Board for 
Correction of Military Records at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and 
appropriate actions may be completed. 

Air Force Review Boards Agency