RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03386
INDEX CODE 131.09 131.10 136.01
COUNSEL: Frank J. Spinner
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show he was not released from active duty
on 31 December 1992 but was continued on active duty and considered
for promotion to the grade of colonel by any selection board to which
he would have been entitled had he remained on active duty, and
retired on 1 December 1998 in the higher grade.
_________________________________________________________________
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:
The applicant was not selected for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (LTC) by the Calendar Year 1989 (CY89) and CY90
Central LTC Selection Boards, which convened on 15 May 1989 and 16
January 1990, respectively. Since he was twice nonselected for
promotion he was required by law to be separated unless selected for
continued active duty by a selective continuation board. He was
selected for and accepted continuation on 12 March 1990. On 7 July
1992, he applied and was approved for the Voluntary Separation
Incentive (VSI) with an effective date of separation on 31 December
1992. At the time of his separation, he had 17 years, 8 months and 9
days of active service.
The relief ultimately granted the applicant in his first appeal,
AFBCMR Docket No. 91-02750, on 6 February 1998 drives the instant
case. To summarize, an Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) closing 6
July 1988 was added to his record and he was given consideration by
Special Selection Boards (SSB) for the CY89 board. The SSB for the
CY89 convened on 14 September 1998 and selected him for promotion to
the grade of LTC with a retroactive date of rank (DOR) of 1 November
1989.
Complete details of the first case are contained in the Second
Addendum to Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit B.
Based on the retroactive DOR of 1 November 1989, the first time the
applicant would have been eligible for promotion consideration for
colonel was below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) by the CY92A board. The
applicant was still on active duty when that board convened on 6 July
1992. His first in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) consideration would have
been the CY94A colonel board, which convened on 11 July 1994, after he
had separated.
He is currently receiving VSI pay annually for the next 35 years,
unless he becomes ineligible to receive it.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the appeal
and indicates she would impose no objection to the applicant’s return
to active duty in the grade of LTC. Since DPPPA is not the office of
primary responsibility for separations and retirements, the author
defers to [HQ AFPC/DPPRR] for eligibility requirements to retire in
the grade of LTC.
A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Retirements Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, also provided an evaluation,
recommending that the applicant’s request to be retired on 1 December
1998 in the higher grade be denied. While an error did occur, the
author believes granting the applicant so much unearned service credit
is inappropriate. Instead, the author recommends the applicant be
allowed to retire in the grade of LTC, but only at the point in time
where he would have acquired 20 years total active service---1 May
1995. He would then be able to retire with 20 years and 9 days of
active service and 24 years, 11 months and 14 days service for pay.
Further, if this relief is granted, he will be required to reimburse
the total amount of VSI payments received.
A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Counsel reviewed the evaluations and provides counter-arguments for
the requested relief. The applicant is not asking to be credited with
more service than he would have normally served. He may very well be
asking for less, especially if he had been promoted to colonel. The
applicant would have served at least until the 22-year point and
longer if he had been promoted to colonel; there is no evidence to
contradict him. He could reenter the service and get at least 24 years
of credit. Counsel requests that the Board not presume, absent any
facts whatsoever, that the applicant would have retired at the 20-year
point. The “whole loaf” of relief in this case warrants giving the
applicant full service credit.
Counsel’s complete response is 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 to warrant partial
relief. After carefully considering counsel’s contentions and the
evidence of record, we believe the form of relief suggested by the HQ
AFPC Retirements Branch is the most equitable compromise. While an
error did occur, we do not believe the applicant should be credited
with service beyond the point when he met the legal requirements to
retire in the grade of lieutenant colonel with 20 years of active
duty. Furthermore, we note that even though the applicant was selected
for and accepted continuation for 20 years on 12 March 1992, he
instead opted out under the VSI program on 31 December 1992 with 17
years, 8 months and 9 days of active service. Consequently, we do not
find counsel’s assertions that the applicant would have remained on
active duty for the length of time he wishes to be credited with very
persuasive. Since correcting his records to reflect he was on active
duty until 1 May 1995 renders him eligible by law for promotion
consideration by the CY94A colonel board, which convened on 11 July
1994, we recommend he be considered by SSB for that board and the
results forwarded to the AFBCMR for final resolution. We would remind
the applicant that whether he is retired for length of service, or is
selected for promotion to the grade of colonel and continues on active
duty, he would be required to reimburse the total amount of VSI
payments he has received. In view of the above, we recommend his
records be corrected as indicated below.
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 legal counsel, would not have materially
added to that understanding. Therefore, the request for a hearing is
not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. He was not released from active duty under the provisions of
the Voluntary Separation Incentive on 31 December 1992, but on that
date was continued on active duty and was ordered permanent change of
station to his home of record (home of selection) pending further
orders.
b. On 1 May 1995, he retired for length of service in the grade
of lieutenant colonel.
It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the
grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar
Year 1994A Colonel Selection Board and the Air Force Board for
Correction of Military Records be advised of the SSB’s recommendation
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 30 September 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Dec 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Addendum ROP, dated 3 Apr 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 15 Dec 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRR, dated 20 Jan 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Feb 99.
Exhibit F. Letter, Counsel, dated 25 Mar 99.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 98-03386
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. He was not released from active duty under the
provisions of the Voluntary Separation Incentive on 31 December 1992,
but on that date was continued on active duty and was ordered
permanent change of station to his home of record (home of selection)
pending further orders.
b. On 1 May 1995, he retired for length of service in the
grade of lieutenant colonel.
It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the
Calendar Year 1994A Colonel Selection Board and the Air Force Board
for Correction of Military Records be advised of the SSB’s
recommendation at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary
and appropriate actions may be completed.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY87, CY89, CY90 and CY91A Selection Boards. Applicant contends the Air Force selection boards are in violation of DoDD 1320.12 by not conducting individual selection boards for each competitive category and preparing individual reports for those boards. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and...
While serving on active duty, he was promoted to the grade of captain, with an effective date and date of rank of 1 July 1987. In support of his request, he has provided a letter, dated 12 September 1994, documenting his formal application for employment with the National Security Agency (NSA) prior to his date of separation of 18 November 1994. Since the HQ AFMPC/DPMAR policy letter of 30 January 1995 clearly stated that "confirmed employment or formal application pending prior to date...
In summary, no senior rater, no MLRB President, no central selection board, and no -special selection board has ever reviewed his CY90 (1 year BPZ)"records that included the revised CY89 ( 2 year BPZ) PRF. Based on the SRR review of his PO589 PRF and subsequent upgrade, the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for the CY89A Board. Based on upon a senior rater review (SRR) of his previous CY89 (1 5 May 89) lieutenant colonel...
c. The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the CY97C board reflect an overall recommendation of “Definitely Promote (DP).” 3. He was promoted by SSB to major with annotations on his top two OPRs, and subsequently promoted APZ to LTC with the AF Form 77 and four OPRs with annotations in his records. He contends, in part, that his unnecessary break in service and the annotated documents in his records caused the MLR board not to award him a “DP” on the CY97C PRF and the promotion...
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...
On the contrary, the issue here is whether any error has occurred within an internal Air Force promotion recommendation procedure (unlike Sanders, this applicant has not proven the existence of any error requiring correction) , wherein the final promotion recommendation (DP, Promote, Do Not Promote) cannot exist without the concurrence of the officers who authored and approved it. The attached reaccomplished PRF, reflecting a promotion recommendation of IIDefinitely Promote (DP) , be...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00912
He had completed a total of 2 years, 3 months and 7 days of service at the time of his discharge from the Army National Guard. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that his pay date of 5 November 1982 must have been the date the Base CBPO was going on when he was told to attend a meeting on the SSB/VSI...
He had completed a total of 2 years, 3 months and 7 days of service at the time of his discharge from the Army National Guard. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that his pay date of 5 November 1982 must have been the date the Base CBPO was going on when he was told to attend a meeting on the SSB/VSI...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Selection Board Secretariat, HQ AFPC/DPPB, stated they disagree with counsel’s contention that the special selection board (SSB) process is unfair in that the use of benchmark records from the gray zone from the central board creates a higher standard for selection than that for the central board. ), he was otherwise competitive for promotion upon receiving the DP recommendation after his records...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02277
If his request for retroactive promotion is denied and the Board directs consideration for promotion by Special Selection Board (SSB), applicant also requests that: 4. As a result of his selection for promotion to the grade of major, the AFBCMR further recommended approval of his request to be reinstated to active duty. If applicant would be selected to lieutenant colonel by an SSB, at that time his record would be scored against “benchmark” records and he would receive school candidacy if...