RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02590
INDEX NUMBER: 136.01
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retirement date be adjusted from 1 Oct 00 to 1 Mar 01.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was unable to submit his paperwork requesting a 1 Mar 01
retirement date prior to receiving an assignment due to mission
requirements.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to information taken from the Personnel Data System, the
applicant retired in the grade of master sergeant effective 1 Oct
00. The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date is
13 Feb 79. On 6 Mar 00, the applicant was selected for an
assignment to Korea. He was notified of the assignment on 15 Mar
00. The applicant elected to retire in lieu of accepting the
assignment. In accordance with the Air Force 7-day option policy,
the applicant was required to retire effective 1 Oct 00.
On 28 Mar 00, he requested an exception to the 7-day option policy
through his squadron commander requesting a 1 Mar 01 retirement
date. His commander supported his request. The Air Force denied
his request on 26 Apr 00. On 26 Apr 00, the applicant reapplied
for retirement requesting a 1 Oct 00 retirement date. His
application was approved on 2 May 00. On 25 May 00, the applicant
submitted another request for an exception to the 7-day option
policy. He was notified on 30 Jun 00 that his request was again
disproved. The applicant retired effective 1 Oct 00.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Assignment Procedures Branch, AFPC/DPAPP1, evaluated this
application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request.
There is nothing to indicate that the applicant was miscounselled
concerning his assignment options. He chose the 7-day option and
decided to terminate his career.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Special Programs Section, AFPC/DPPRRP, also evaluated this
application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The
applicant voluntarily declined to accept the assignment and
voluntarily applied for retirement under the 7-day option policy.
No error or injustice occurred in processing the applicant’s
retirement. There is no provision for the applicant to request an
extension of his approved retirement date for the sole purpose of
obtaining over 22 years active service. Further, it would be
inherently unfair to extend applicant’s retirement date to a date
in the future and for him to gain credit for service he did not
perform when we cannot grant the same relief to other enlisted
members.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluations and gave an
account of the typical duties he performed and the specific reasons
he was unable to submit his retirement paperwork prior to receiving
the assignment. He emphasizes that it is unfair for him to be
denied the 1 Mar 01 retirement date when it was a duty commitment
that prevented him from submitting his retirement application. He
further states that he would be willing to return to active duty at
Malstrom AFB for five months if necessary, but is not willing to
spend a year detached from his family.
The applicant’s complete submission 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits
of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
___________________________________________________________________
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 30 January 2001, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Ms. Peggy E. Gordan, Member
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Sep 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 11 Oct 00.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 6 Nov 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Nov 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, 22 Nov 00.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
[According to a 23 Oct 00 letter to the applicant from the Executive Director of HQ AFPC (Exhibit A), the Personnel Data System (PDS) had an ASD of 1 Dec 98 when the applicant submitted his 2 Mar 99 retirement application to the Holloman AFB military personnel flight (MPF). Their letter indicated that the date requested for a second retirement extension would result in his having received an approved retirement for 14 months from the date of the original application under 7-Day Option...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02738
The applicant’s complete review is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/JA states they cannot support the applicant's request that he be given a full 30-year retirement in the grade of colonel given that he only served 22 years of actual active duty time. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit H. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01681
In a 4 Feb 00 appeal, he requested SSB consideration for the Fiscal Year 2000 (FY00) Air Force Reserve Colonel Promotion Selection Board, which convened on 18 Oct 99, and any subsequent Reserve Colonel Promotion Board for which he was not considered. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s previous appeal and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C. On 15 Jun 01, the applicant was notified that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03407
There were many inconsistencies with the Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program (WBFMP) measurements taken. On 31 Oct 02, applicant voluntarily retired from the Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant for years of service. DPPRRP states on 18 Dec 01, his request for retirement was denied, although there is no indication in his record that his specific request for retirement in lieu of demotion was forwarded to the SAF as an attachment.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01075
AFI 36-2606 states that the appeal authority for individuals like the applicant with more than 20 years of service would be his group commander. Based on HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s advisory (Exhibit E), the group commander’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) contacted the HQ AFPC retirements section to advise that the group commander was going to complete the AF Form 418. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises the applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02504
When the applicant was selected for promotion to SSgt after having been previously demoted, the personnel system was not updated prior to his retirement orders being published. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02804
He earned 30 days of leave during FY04 and used 31 days of leave. He earned 10 days of leave between 1 Oct 04 and 31 Jan 05 and used eight days of leave. In a 23 Dec 04 letter, the applicant once again stated he did not understand he was applying for a 1 Feb 05 retirement date.
Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY00A colonel’s board. Several of the applicant’s attachments stated that “AFSC is an assignment related course not PME, per se.” The applicant acknowledged that although AFSC was not displayed on his OSB, there was a training report filed in his officer selection record (OSR) verifying his successful completion of AFSC. Removal of JPME II from the OSBs alleviated the perception among joint officers...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-03569
The applicant had less than 2 years TIG on her requested retirement date of 1 Aug 01 and did not qualify for the waiver to retire with two years TIG. If a waiver to the 3-year TIG requirement had existed on 1 Feb 03, her retired pay would still be the same. There is no difference in benefits accorded to her if retired in the grade of major or retired in the grade of Lt Col. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03543
On 6 Jul 00, the Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council SAF/PC, determined that the applicant served satisfactorily in the higher grade of technical sergeant and directed that he be advanced in that grade, on the retired list, upon completion of the required service (27 October 2010). SAF/PC made the determination that he should be advanced to the grade of technical sergeant effective 27 Oct 10. The Board notes that in accordance with the decision of the Secretary of the Air Force...