RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02095
INDEX CODE: 121, 136
COUNSEL: Neil B. Kabatchnick
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1 Voiding of her retirement on 1 Oct 95;
2. She be continued on active duty from 1 Oct 95 to 31 Oct 95 as a
captain and from 1 Nov 95 to 30 Apr 96 in the grade of major;
3. She was retired in the grade of major on 1 May 96 with a total
of 20 years, 6 months, and 5 days of active military service; and 21
years of service for pay purposes; and,
4. Such other and/or further relief as may be deemed necessary
and/or appropriate in order to accord applicant full and complete
relief including, but not limited to, payment of any pay and
allowances as may be due as a result of the correction of applicant’s
records.
Counsel amended applicant’s original request as indicated above.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was prematurely retired and subsequently selected for promotion by
a Special Selection Board (SSB).
In support of her appeal, applicant submits a copy AF Form 281
(Notification of Change in Service Member’s Official Records)
reflecting her name change, a letter regarding her SSB selection, a
letter indicating the Senate confirmed the results of the SSB, and a
copy of the orders.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD)
was 26 Sep 75.
On 20 Oct 94, applicant submitted a voluntary retirement application
requesting an effective date of retirement of 1 Oct 95.
On 25 Oct 94, applicant was notified by letter of her nonselection for
promotion to the grade of major by the Calendar Year 1994A (CY94A)
Major Central Selection Board which convened on 22 Aug 94. The letter
advised the applicant, “provided she remain eligible, she would be
considered for promotion by the next scheduled Major Board which will
consist of entirely different members. If you are nonselected for
promotion by the next board and will be retirement eligible on the
mandatory separation date for that board (normally the last day of the
sixth month after the board report is approved), you must retire on
the first day of the seventh month after the board report is
approved.”
On 1 Oct 95, the applicant voluntarily retired in the grade of captain
under the provisions of AFI 36-3203 (Voluntary Retirement: Sufficient
Service for Retirement). She served 20 years and 5 days of active
duty.
As a result of an earlier appeal, on 30 Jul 96, the Board recommended
applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period
1 Oct 92 through 1 Jun 93 and Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs)
prepared for the CY93B, CY94A, and CY95A, be declared void and removed
from her records and that she be considered for promotion to the grade
of major by an SSB for the CY93B, CY94A, and CY95A Central Major
Boards. The Board recommended denial of applicant’s request for
promotion to the grade of major by the CY94 major board through the
correction of records process (see TAB 1).
As a result of the above decision, the applicant was considered for
promotion to the grade of major by an SSB for the CY94A (22 Aug 94)
major selection board which convened on 5 Nov 97 and was selected for
promotion to the grade of major.
On 6 Jan 98, the applicant was advised that she had been promoted to
the grade of major by an SSB and that her promotion could not become
effective until the Senate confirmed the promotion list. On the same
date, she was also advised that she could request reinstatement to
active duty if she so desired.
On 1 May 98, the applicant was advised that the Senate had approved
the results of the SSB.
On 5 May 98, Department of the Air Force Special Order JB-000564 was
published announcing applicant’s promotion to the grade of major with
a date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 Nov 95. Based on the
effective date of applicant’s retirement (1 Oct 95) and the effective
date of promotion (1 Nov 95), the orders have the following statement,
“The promotion of any officer released from active duty prior to the
effective date of promotion is without effect.”
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Commanders’ Programs Branch, AFPC/DPSFC, reviewed this
application and indicated that under Section 501, Title 10, United
States Code (USC), payment for accrued leave cannot exceed 60 days.
Applicant retired 1 Oct 95 in the grade of captain and received
payment for 0.5 days on 30 Sep 95. She was selected for promotion by
an SSB on 1 Nov 97 and her effective date of promotion to major is
1 Nov 95. If the retirement date changes from 1 Oct 95 to 1 Oct 98,
applicant:
- Accrues 90 days for Fiscal Year 1996 (FY96) - FY98.
- Is entitled to payment for 59.5 days as of 30 Sep 98.
- Forfeits 30.5 days because payment for accrued leave
cannot exceed 60 days.
DPSFC recommends payment for 59.5 days of accrued leave if her
retirement date changes from 1 Oct 95 to 1 Oct 98.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Retirements Branch, AFPC/DPPRR, also reviewed this application and
indicated that AFI 36-2501, Attachment 2, clearly states in paragraph
A2.5, Promotion Ineligibility: Officers are not eligible for
consideration by a selection board or for promotion if they: Are not
on the active duty list. DPPRR states that applicant is not eligible
for promotion to major based on the effective date of promotion (1 Nov
95) and the effective date of her retirement (1 Oct 95). Furthermore,
applicant’s retirement date of 1 Oct 95 was a voluntary retirement
established under Section 8911, Title 10, USC, and she chose to retire
on 1 Oct 95 instead of waiting to be considered for promotion to major
by the next scheduled major board. While it appears that she does not
want to be reinstated to active duty but rather requests that her
current retirement grade be changed to major and to receive retired
pay in the grade of major with 23 years and 5 days of active service,
this equates to an additional 3 years of active service credit which
she did not actually serve. Although DPPRR agrees that an error did
occur in her records insofar as her promotion nonselection and
although they agree that the Air Force should indeed try to correct
her records in as equitable a manner as possible, they do not agree
that she should be granted 3 additional years of unearned service.
DPPRR further indicated that Section 1370, Title 10, USC, clearly
states, “Unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other
provision of law, a commissioned officer...of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, or Marine Corps who retires under any provision of law other
than Chapter 61 or Chapter 1223 of this title shall,...be retired in
the highest grade in which he served on active duty satisfactorily, as
determined by the Secretary of the military department concerned, for
not less than six months.” Therefore, applicant will meet all time-in-
grade (TIG) requirements of law with an effective date of retirement
of 1 May 96 and will additionally receive retired pay in that grade
and with increased service for the remainder of her life. If the
decision is made to grant the relief sought, the applicant’s record
should be corrected to show she was promoted to major and remained on
active duty until 1 May 96. This would allow her to retire in the
grade of major but only at the point in time where she would have met
all legal requirements to retire in grade (6 months’ TIG as major).
A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and indicated that
applicant concurs with DPPRR’s recommendation that her records should
be corrected to show she was promoted to (the permanent grade of)
major (with DOR and effective date of 1 Nov 95) and remained on active
duty until 1 May 96 at which time applicant was retired in the
permanent grade of major, with 20 years, 6 months, and 5 days of
active military service and 21 years of service for pay purposes.
Counsel’s complete response is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. As noted by the Air
Force, an error did occur in the applicant’s record insofar as her
promotion nonselection. It is duly noted that applicant voluntarily
chose to retire on 1 Oct 95 instead of waiting to be considered for
promotion to major by the next scheduled Major Board; however, after
noting she was selected for promotion to major by SSB for the CY94A
board, a majority of the Board feels that she should be retired in the
grade for which she was selected after the minimum TIG requirements
are satisfied. In view of the above, and in order to offset any
possibility of an injustice to the applicant, a majority of the Board
recommends her record be corrected as indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. She was not released from active duty on 30 Sep 95 and
retired for length of service on 1 Oct 95, but rather on that date,
she continued to serve on active duty.
b. She was promoted to the grade of major, effective, and
with a DOR of 1 Nov 95.
c. On 1 May 96, she was retired for length of service in the
grade of major.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 3 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Martha Maust, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)
By a majority vote, the Board recommended applicant be granted her
amended request. Ms. White-Olson voted to deny applicant’s requests
but does not wish to submit a minority report. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSFC, dated 5 Aug 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPRR, dated 20 Aug 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Sep 98.
Exhibit F. Letter fr counsel, dated 22 Sep 98.
MARTHA MAUST
Panel Chair
INDEX CODE: 121, 136
AFBCMR 98-02095
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:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to , be corrected to show that:
a. She was not released from active duty on 30 September
1995 and retired for length of service on 1 October 1995, but rather
on that date, she continued to serve on active duty.
b. She was promoted to the grade of major, effective,
and with a date of rank of 1 November 1995.
c. On 1 May 96, she was retired for length of service in
the grade of major.
JOE G.
LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force
Review Boards Agency
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00105 (Case 2) INDEX CODES: 131.00, 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel as though selected by the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 1 Jun 98; or, as an alternative, as an exception to...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Officer Promotion Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO states in regard to the applicant’s request to set aside the promotion nonselections by the CY93B and CY94A Central Major Selection Boards, that Title 10 clearly establishes that officers not selected for promotion are considered to have failed that promotion. The Secretary of the Air Force did not convene a selective continuation board associated with the CY94A Central Major...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01894
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01894 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Referral Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 5 July 1990 through 4 January 1991, be declared void and removed from her records. Prior to the applicant’s break in service, during the period...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00189
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00189 (CASE 2) INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1994A (CY94A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. On 1 Nov 01, the Board...
Although the JSAM was not reflected on the OSB, the citation was on file in the OSR and, therefore, present for the board’s consideration. The Air Force acknowledges that while the JSAM was not reflected on applicant’s OSB, the citation was a part of her selection record that was reviewed by the promotion board. It is highly unlikely this was the cause of her nonselection since central boards evaluate the entire officer record.
According to DPPPEB, there was no evidence presented to support the allegations of "illegal" information being considered in the PRF process. Also, there was no official evidence presented to support allegations of '\special" promote recommendations being used to identify officers who should be selected for promotion by the Central Selection Board. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that the evidence proves that his PRF was based on an...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02562 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1997D (CY97D) (5 Nov 97) Central Major Board with inclusion of the Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 24 Nov 96 through 30 Jun 97 in her...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01358 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 126.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: A Letter of Reprimand (LOR), dated 14 Oct 97, and an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), dated Nov 97, be removed from her permanent records. The applicant provided copies of the 14 Oct 97 LOR, issued by her flight commander,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01451
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01451 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be amended in the "Assignment History" section by adding the duty title of “Joint Information...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02697
A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a detailed response to the Air Force advisory opinions, as well as additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration (Exhibit I). A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit N. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...