RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00151
            INDEX CODE:  135.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retirement date of 1 May 97 be adjusted to one that  will  provide
him with 30 years of commissioned service or 5 years  in  the  Reserve
grade of colonel, thus entitling him to monetary restitution.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was involuntarily retired in May 97 using Reduction in Force  (RIF)
procedures that did not follow Air National Guard  Instruction  (ANGI)
36-101.  The Idaho Air National Guard (IDANG)  never  convened  a  RIF
board,  ranked  all  the  affected  officers  and  retired  all  those
eligible, and involuntarily separated officers until they reached  the
appropriate number called for in the new  Support  Personnel  Manpower
Document (SPMD).  Had the proper  RIF  procedures  been  followed,  he
would still have been in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status when he
was promoted to colonel instead of being in a retired status when  the
promotion came through.  He was notified on 29 Jul 98 that he had been
promoted to colonel, with a date of rank of Jun 96, when  he  met  the
colonel board.  As a result of the improper AGR RIF, he was retired 50
months earlier than his mandatory separation date as a colonel  (O-6),
which would have been Jun 01.  Had he still been on AGR status when he
was promoted to the grade of colonel, he would have been able to  stay
until he had attained 30 years of commissioned service or 5  years  in
grade.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
with additional documents associated with  the  issues  cited  in  his
contentions.  These documents are appended at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) is  18
Dec 68.  Having been duly examined by a Federal Recognition Board, the
applicant  received  temporary  Federal  recognition   as   a   second
lieutenant, Idaho Air National Guard (IDANG), effective 18 Dec 68.  On
9 Feb 69, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve  of
the Air Force (Air National Guard).

The applicant was progressively promoted to the  Reserve  of  the  Air
Force and Air National Guard grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5), with a
promotion service date (PSD) of 11 Jan 87 and  an  effective  date  of
15 May 87.  By ANG Special Order  AP-124,  dated  5  Jun  98,  he  was
promoted to the Reserve of the Air Force and Air National Guard  grade
of colonel (O-6), with a PSD and effective date of 30 Jun 96.

IDANG Special Order A-92, dated 14 Sep 94, reveals that the  applicant
was on an Active Guard and  Reserve  (AGR)  tour  of  duty  (full-time
duty), during the period 1 Oct 94 - 30 Sep 99, and that the authorized
military grade was O-5.

Information extracted from applicant’s submission  indicates  that  he
had a mandatory separation date (MSD), with 20 years of service, of 30
Jan 97.  On 28 Jan 97, the applicant was notified by HQ IDANG/CC  that
his AGR separation date was 30 Apr 97 (refer to Exhibit A, Tab I).  On
3 Feb 97, the applicant requested  a  1 May  97  retirement  date  and
transfer to the Retired Reserve.

IDANG Special Order AX-36, dated 11 Apr 97,  amended  the  applicant’s
AGR Tour of 14 Sep 94, changing his end of tour date from 30 Sep 99 to
30 Apr 97.   By  ANG  Special  Order  AW-21,  dated  21  May  97,  the
applicant’s Federal recognition status was withdrawn, effective 30 Apr
97, due to his transfer to the Air Force Reserve.

On 30 Apr 97, the applicant was  relieved  from  his  present  Reserve
assignment under the provisions of ANGI  36-101  (Termination  of  AGR
Military Duty Tour) and retired in the  Reserve  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel, effective 1 May 97.  He had completed a total of 20 years,  3
months and 23 days of active service for retirement.

Applicant’s ANG/USAFR  Point  Credit  Summary,  prepared  22  Jun  96,
reflects he was credited with 28 years of satisfactory Federal service
as of the retirement year ending (RYE) 22 Apr 96.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Personnel  Policy  Staff   Officer,   ANG/DPFP,   reviewed   this
application and recommended denial.  DPFP stated that the denial of an
extension of an AGR tour to a member is not  a  violation  of  law  or
policy on the part of the Idaho ANG.  Retention in the AGR program  is
not an individual’s right, but is subject to  the  discretion  of  the
unit commander.  Final approval authority  is  the  Adjutant  General.
DPFP indicated that there are provisions  in  law  that  allow  for  a
member, once reaching sanctuary of 18 years of active duty, to  remain
on active duty until they have qualified for retirement at 20 years of
service.  A member’s mandatory separation date (MSD) is determined  by
their age and grade.  In the applicant’s case, as a colonel (O-6),  he
could have served to age 60  or  30  years  of  commissioned  service,
whichever occurs first.  However, as an AGR member, he serves  at  the
pleasure of the wing commander and subsequently the Adjutant  General.
Once the applicant had achieved 20 years of active  duty  service,  he
was qualified for retirement.  DPFP stated that  although  a  RIF  was
discussed, one was not accomplished and the  applicant  was  separated
because he had enough active duty service to qualify for an  immediate
active duty retirement.  DPFP sees no fault on the part of  the  Idaho
ANG.


In support of their position, DPFP  provided  a  submission  from  the
commanding general, ID Military Division/IDCG,  who  stated  that  the
applicant was separated from the AGR program because he  was  eligible
for an immediate active duty retirement when the ID ANG  was  notified
it would undergo a mission change resulting in a reduction in fulltime
manpower positions.  IDCG indicated that the applicant was not mission
essential nor did he possess unique military qualifications that  were
not readily available within  the  numbered  wing.   This  action  was
accomplished to avoid having  to  convene  a  RIF  Board  and  was  in
accordance with ANGI 36-101.  The  applicant’s  subsequent  retirement
from the Air Force/ANG was his personal choice.  His  notification  to
separate from the AGR program clearly stated that it  did  not  affect
his military status in the ID ANG.  Based upon a  thorough  review  of
all facts and  circumstances  surrounding  applicant’s  request,  IDCG
finds absolutely  no  substance  to  his  request  and  wholeheartedly
disagrees with any adjustment to applicant’s retirement  date  or  any
monetary restitution.

A complete copy of  the  ANG/DPFP  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is
appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that he  did
not request an extension of  an  AGR  tour.   He  disagrees  with  the
advisory writer that “he could have served  to  age  60  or  30  years
commissioned service, whichever occurs first.”  Since he was promoted,
effective 30 Jun 96, pre-Reserve  Officers  Promotion  Management  Act
(ROPMA) rules apply.  Thus, his mandatory separation  date  (MSD)  was
still 30 years + 30 days or five years time-in-grade (TIG),  whichever
is later.  Even though he serves at the pleasure of the wing commander
and subsequently the Adjutant General, his tour of duty is governed by
regulation  (ANGI  36-101);  and,  ANGI  36-101  is   specific   about
involuntary separation before a tour ends.  The reason given  for  his
separation was because he was retirement eligible and  because  of  an
SPMD change, AGR positions need to be given back to the Guard  Bureau.
ANGI 36-101, para 6.6. states that the unit is required to  conduct  a
Reaction in Force (RIF).  No  other  reason  for  his  separation  was
given.  Because he was on the list for promotion to O-6, his mandatory
separation date (MSD) as an O-5  was  not  applicable.   The  advisory
writer states that the reason he was  separated  was  because  he  had
enough active duty to retire.  His contention is his forced retirement
was arbitrary and capricious.  The IDANG retained an o-5 (Lt Col F---)
when, in fact, he should have been retired first.

The response from the Idaho ANG (IDANG) to his request for  correction
of military records comes as a complete surprise and contradicts  what
he was told in 1996 when these events were occurring.  The 14  Nov  96
memo requesting Lt Col F--- be excluded from any RIF actions before 30
Sep 97  is  surprising.   However,  this  memo  does  not  change  his
contention that the IDANG did not follow  the  proper  procedures  per
ANGI 36-101.  In summary, the IDANG  acted  arbitrarily  and  did  not
follow the fair and equitable treatment as required  by  ANGI  36-101.
They should have either  removed  Lt  Col  F---  from  AGR  status  or
identified his specific qualifications that would make him exempt from
being separated when the firing process began.  He asks the  Board  to
correct his records and provide him the monetary relief  to  which  he
believes he is entitled.

Complete copies of the response are appended at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________

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.    After   careful
consideration of the facts of this case, we are unpersuaded  that  the
applicant’s  Active  Guard/Reserve  (AGR)   separation   and   ensuing
retirement was erroneous or contrary to  the  governing  Air  National
Guard (ANG) instruction.  In cases of this nature, we are  constrained
to note that the needs of the service are paramount in  such  matters.
There is nothing in the evidence  provided  which  would  lead  us  to
believe that the applicant’s separation was  based  on  factors  other
than sound management principles or that his  superiors  abused  their
discretionary  authority  when  the  applicant  was  recommended   for
separation from the AGR program because he  was  retirement  eligible.
In this respect, no evidence has been presented to indicate  that  the
applicant was critical  to  the  mission  and  should  not  have  been
separated from the AGR program.  We noted that  an  AGR  Reduction  In
Force  (RIF)  was  not  accomplished  because  the  full-time  officer
manpower reductions were accomplished through separation of retirement
eligible AGRs, which we believe was in accordance with  the  governing
ANG instruction.  Other than the applicant’s own assertions,  we  find
no persuasive evidence indicating  that  the  applicant’s  substantial
rights were violated, that the information cited as the basis for  the
recommendation for his separation was erroneous or that his commanders
abused their authority.  We are therefore in agreement  with  the  ANG
assessment of the issues raised  by  the  applicant  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that he  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or  injustice.   Accordingly,  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 18 July 2001, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Roscoe Hinton Jr., Member
                  Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPFP, w/atchs, dated 4 May 01.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 25 May 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letters from applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair