RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02884 (Cs #2)
                 INDEX CODE  136.01  121.03
                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  Yes
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retirement not be  classified  as  a  7-Day  Option  so  that  his
retirement date can be extended from 1 Mar 00 to 1 May 00.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Significant errors and deviations from Air Force  directives  occurred
within the personnel system that changed his  retirement  to  a  7-Day
Option and resulted in the disapproval of a 1 May 00 retirement  date.


An assignment selection date (ASD) allegedly existed prior  to  his  8
Mar 99 request for retirement effective 1 Nov  99.  However,  the  Air
Force Personnel Center (AFPC) failed to notify him  or  his  chain  of
command that he had an assignment or that the status of his retirement
was changed to a 7-Day Option as a  result.   His  retirement  request
preceded the ASD and the entire personnel  system  worked  exactly  as
designed until after the completion of his original retirement request
on 8 Mar 99. According to AFPC/DPPR, he was not notified of assignment
selection because he was on temporary duty  (TDY).   However,  by  the
time he went TDY 14-26 Mar 99, three weeks had passed since assignment
selection for a short-notice assignment and he had not been  notified.
This situation would require  a  total  breakdown  of  the  assignment
notification process  for  almost  three  weeks.   However,  a  signed
retirement request that preceded an ASD  would  explain  the  complete
lack of assignment notification by the 49th  MSS  Assignments  Branch,
the absence of follow-up assignment declination documentation, and the
blank Assignment Notification Date in his records.  Then the Stop-Loss
initiative put  his  retirement  on  hold.   In  order  to  support  a
commitment made by the 49th Fighter Wing leadership (delivery of an F-
4 to Germany), he wanted to extend his post-Stop Loss retirement  date
of 1 Mar 00 to 1 May 00.  Again,  the  AFPC  staff  committed  several
errors and deviated from Air Force directives that  directly  resulted
in  his  extended  retirement  date  request  being  disapproved.  The
rationale used by AFPC for disapproval overlooked mission requirements
and included a misconception that  his  request  was  solely  to  take
terminal  leave.  His  evidence  shows   there   was   no   assignment
notification or declination by 8 Mar 99 or as late as 4 Feb 00. Either
AFPC failed to check his records or used the wrong date  to  determine
the validity of his request for  a  1  May  00  retirement  date.   In
addition, AFPC evaluated manning requirements against  the  wrong  Air
Force Specialty Code (AFSC). When he had to retire on  1  Mar  00,  he
lost 9 ½ days of leave.

The applicant submits a DD Form 149 with 11 attachments as well  as  a
supplemental package, dated 14 Nov 00, with 19 attachments.   Included
is a statement from the Separations and Retirements clerk at  Holloman
AFB, NM, who processed the applicant’s initial request for retirement.
She asserts that a thorough check of  the  personnel  system  did  not
indicate any assignment actions pending or that the  applicant  wished
to retire in lieu of assignment (7-Day Option).  Statements  from  the
49th Fighter Wing commander and vice commander confirm that  they  had
no knowledge of any pending assignment or that the retirement was a 7-
Day Option.

A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

During the period in question, the applicant was the Chief  of  Safety
assigned to the 49th Fighter Wing at Holloman AFB, NM.

The applicant submitted a request for retirement (AF Form 1160)  on  2
Mar 99 with an effective date of 1 Nov 99. His request was approved on
8 Mar 99.  Retirement orders were published 23 Apr 99.  [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).  On 10 Mar  99,  the
PDS reflected he had been selected for assignment to Davis-Mothan AFB,
AZ, with a report no later than date of 30 May 99.]

On 25 May 99, the Stop-Loss initiative was announced.  On 23  Jun  99,
AFPC announced that members who had approved voluntary (to include  7-
Day Option request) retirement dates between 15 Jun 99 and 31  Dec  99
were  eligible  to   make   a   selection   between   the   following:
(1) Request to retire/separate on their original  date  of  separation
(DOS), (2) Request to voluntarily extend  their  retirement/separation
date up to 6 months from their original approved date (to  include  7-
Day Option  requests),  or  (3) Request  to  withdraw  their  approved
retirement/separation.

The MPFs were instructed  to  report  all  individuals  with  original
DOS/retirement dates from 2 Sep 99 through 31 Dec 99 to AFPC by  2 Aug
99.

On 12 Jul 99, the applicant voluntarily submitted a request to  change
his approved effective date of retirement from 1 Nov 99 to 1  Mar  00,
which was a 4-month extension.  This request was approved  by  special
order on 20 Aug 99.  By special order dated 23 Aug 99, the applicant’s
1 Nov 99 retirement date was rescinded.

On 2 Feb 00, the applicant submitted another  request  to  change  his
approved effective date of retirement from 1 Mar 00 to 1 May 00  based
on mission/best interests of the Air Force and to avoid losing  leave.
Since his original retirement request was submitted under 7-Day Option
provisions,  HQ  AFPC/DPPR  consulted  AFPC   Operations   Assignments
Division,  who  recommended  disapproval.   The   applicant’s   second
extension request was disapproved on 29 Feb 00.

As a result, the applicant retired in the grade of lieutenant  colonel
on 1 Mar 00 with 20 years, 9 months and 1 day of active service.

On 13 Apr 00, HQ AFPC/DPPR advised the applicant that  the  Operations
Assignments Division considered this request a second extension to the
original 7-Day Option retirement and that approving the request  would
violate Air Force policy of extending separations under  7-Day  Option
past 12 months. 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  provisions.  The  applicant  was  also
advised that he had not been notified of the assignment because he was
TDY.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Retirement Programs & Policy Section, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, advised that
the six-month extension was a one-time offer to  individuals  impacted
by Stop-Loss to request up to a 6-month extension  to  their  approved
date of retirement. If an individual requested  less  than  6  months,
they were not allowed to request an additional extension to extend out
to the 6-month window. Further, based on phone conversations with  the
applicant in early Feb 00, the applicant volunteered for  the  TDY  to
the United Kingdom to support an F-4 delivery from Germany to Holloman
AFB. Both he and his commander were aware of his  1  Mar  00  approved
retirement.  The applicant, in voluntarily  accepting  this  TDY,  was
aware of his leave status. He should have  already  been  on  terminal
leave and/or permissive temporary duty (PTDY) before this TDY came  up
if he  had  plans  to  take  leave  in  conjunction  with  retirement.
Additionally, the unit commander did not make any indication that  the
applicant was the only person available for  the  mission.  Since  the
applicant had not been officially notified of an  assignment,  he  was
not required to submit an application for retirement  within  7  days.
However,  once  a  member  has  an   ASD--regardless   of   assignment
notification--if that member chooses to apply for voluntary retirement
after that point, that member may only request an effective date  that
is in accordance with 7-Day Option criteria.  No errors or  injustices
occurred in the processing of his retirement  or  extension  requests.
All actions were in accordance with provisions outlined  in  AFIs  36-
3203, 36-2110 and special Stop-Loss provisions.  To grant him  another
extension would be extremely unfair to all other  individuals  retired
under the 7-Day Option provisions as well  as  all  other  individuals
only given one opportunity to extend their retirement  date  following
termination of Stop-Loss. Denial is recommended.

A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided two rebuttals.

He disputes what he believes are the omission of  critical  facts  and
inaccurate information contained in the advisory. The evaluation  does
not even mention the personnel system errors as a matter of fact or  a
point of contention.  The evaluation also passes assumptions  such  as
he volunteered for the aircraft delivery--he did not.  The errors made
by the personnel system led to an understanding  that  his  retirement
was completely voluntary  and  not  the  result  of  a  7-Day  Option.
Further, the personnel  system  did  not  correct  that  understanding
despite several opportunities.  Those errors occurred through no fault
of his or his chain of command.  Given  the  commitment  by  the  49th
Fighter Wing leadership to extend his retirement date,  he  agreed  to
stay with the aircraft  delivery.  Unfortunately,  these  actions  and
decisions  were  tainted  by  the  errors  that  occurred  within  the
personnel system.  He asks that he make a personal  appearance  before
the Board to ensure a complete and accurate picture is presented.

The applicant’s complete responses, with attachments, are  at  Exhibit
E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Retirement Program & Policy Section, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, reviewed  the
appeal and explains why the personnel system as stated in AFIs 36-2110
and 36-3203 and in MPFM 95-68 did not violate the applicant’s  request
for retirement. His application for retirement was processed correctly
under the 7-Day Option program. Timely assignment notification had  no
bearing on member applying  for  retirement  under  the  7-Day  Option
program. The fact that the applicant had an ASD in the system  at  the
time he submitted  his  initial  retirement  application  is  why  his
application was  processed  under  the  7-Day  Option  provisions  and
criteria.  According  to  the  PDS,  when  he  initially  applied  for
retirement  and  when  he  requested  an  extension  of  his  approved
retirement date, his DAFSC was S11F3Y, not K11F3.  [Comments  from  HQ
AFPC/DPAOC indicate that the applicant’s  unit  was  over-manned,  and
that manning numbers are based on a specific background of officer (in
this case, fighter pilot or the generic 11FX AFSC),  not  on  specific
prefixes/suffixes.]  Upon searching the PDS, the applicant did have an
ASD on file in Jan 99, Feb 99 and Mar 99 when he initially applied for
retirement on 2 Mar 99.  The fact that neither he  nor  his  chain  of
command was formally notified of the ASD being assigned has no bearing
on why his application was processed under the 7-Day  Option  program.
As for the AFPC Stop-Loss guidance message, he chose option  2,  which
provided  that  members  may  request  to  voluntarily  extend   their
retirement date up to six months from their original approved date (to
include 7-Day Option requests). The applicant voluntarily  elected  to
only request a 4-month extension to his approved  retirement  date  of
1 Nov 99, which was approved.  It did not provide for an individual to
request a retirement date out further than authorized by AFI  36-3203,
or later than 12 months from date of application.  Again, granting his
second request for extension of his approved retirement  would  result
in having received an approved retirement for 14 months from the  date
of  his  original  application  under  7-Day   Option   provisions--an
opportunity  not  offered  to  other  retiring  members.   Denial   is
recommended.

A complete copy  of  the  evaluation,  to  include  comments  from  HQ
AFPC/DPOAC and other attachments, is at Exhibit F.

The Chief, Assignment Procedures and Joint Officer Management Section,
HQ AFPC/DPAPP1, discusses the three different ASDs listed on  the  PDS
SURFs. At the time of  the  applicant’s  selection  for  reassignment,
changes were being made to the  officer  assignment  process.  The  AF
Assignment System (AFAS) had a new tool called  the  Vulnerable  Mover
List (VML), which  alerts  commanders  that  individual  officers  are
vulnerable for PCS selection. There is no requirement for  members  to
be notified in writing; however, it is assumed commanders will  inform
members that placement on the VML is imminent. Whether  the  applicant
was notified cannot be  determined  at  this  level.  The  applicant’s
original ASD was 30 Nov 98, which was subsequently  changed  to  1 Dec
98.  The 25 Feb 99 ASD was actually the date the applicant matched  to
end assignment; however, the official  ASD  for  that  assignment  was
1 Dec 98.  To summarize, he was selected for reassignment continuously
from 30 Nov 98, and a retirement application submitted after that date
would fall under the provisions of the 7-Day Option program. The Chief
concurs with DPPRRP’s advisory.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The applicant indicates he is very concerned  about  the  disingenuous
nature of the advisory opinions. He challenges the fundamental honesty
of the evaluations and reiterates his request for  a  formal  hearing.
He summarizes his factual information and issues  of  contention.   He
emphasizes that the errors made by the  personnel  system  led  to  an
understanding that his retirement was completely voluntary and not the
result of a 7-Day Option.  This tainted his and the wing’s actions and
decisions.  He never would  have  agreed  to  stay  with  an  aircraft
delivery if he knew his original retirement  was  considered  a  7-Day
Option. The Air Force broke its commitment to him.

Applicant’s 13-page response, with 23 attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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   to   warrant
“reclassifying” the applicant’s retirement or extending his retirement
date. Apparently, the applicant had an ASD of 1 Dec 98,  of  which  he
was unaware. He requested an initial retirement  date  of  1  Nov  99,
which was approved.  The  existing  ASD  resulted  in  his  retirement
application being  processed  as  a  7-Day  Option.  Then,  under  the
provisions of the 23 Jun 99 Stop Loss Guidance Message, the  applicant
had the option of still retiring on his original  1  Nov  99  date  or
requesting that it be extended. On 12 Jul 99, he requested that his  1
Nov 99 retirement date be extended for four months to 1 Mar 00 and, on
20 Aug 99, this request also was approved. Finally, on 2 Feb 00,  less
than one month before his extended retirement date of 1  Mar  00,  the
applicant submitted a second extension request for 1 May 00, which was
denied. Regardless of whether he was officially notified  of  the  ASD
prior to applying  for  retirement  or  not,  the  applicant  has  not
demonstrated  that  he  was  harmed,  disadvantaged,  or  deprived  of
exercising various options available to others similarly situated.  He
submitted three retirement date requests and got  what  he  asked  for
twice. The applicant’s  submission  has  not  persuaded  us  that  his
retirement was erroneously processed as a 7-Day Option, that  the  Air
Force should have approved his remaining in service until 1 May 00  to
support an aircraft delivery, or that he is entitled to  a  retirement
date of 1 May 00 with restoration of pay and any lost  leave.  As  the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having  suffered  either
an error or an injustice, the majority of the Board concludes that the
appeal should be denied in its entirety.

4. Although the dissenting member agrees with the majority’s rationale
to deny the requested relief, as a compromise he recommends  extending
the applicant’s retirement date by one month by  way  of  compensating
the applicant for leave he allegedly lost.

5. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has  not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 26 Jun 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                  Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Mr. Groner voted to extend the  applicant’s  retirement  date  by  one
month as a compromise; however, he does not wish to submit a  Minority
Report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Oct 00, and Supplement,
                  dated 14 Nov, 00, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 8 Jan 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Feb 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, Applicant, dated 1 & 5 Feb 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 3 Apr 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 14 May 01.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Jun 01.
   Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Jun 01, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR  00-02884





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency