RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02190
INDEX CODE: 131.09
APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that he was retired in the grade of
colonel, rather than lieutenant colonel.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The decision by the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) to deny him an 11-
month time-in-grade waiver for retirement was unjust.
In support of his submission, the applicant submitted a personal statement,
copies of his dependent medical history of treatment, numerous personal
records and a copy of the Secretary of Defense Public Affairs briefing
dated 17 September 1996 (Exhibit A).
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Regular Air Force, on 30
May 1979. He was progressively promoted to the grade of colonel, effective
and with a date of rank of 1 December 1997. Pursuant to his 27 August 1999
application, the applicant was released from active duty in the grade of
colonel on 31 December 1999 and retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel
on 1 January 2000. He was credited with 20 years, 7 months and 1 day of
total active duty service.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Support Division, Air Force Colonel Matters Office, AFCMOB,
states that on 27 August 1999 the applicant requested voluntary retirement
and simultaneously requested that SAFPC waive the required three years time-
in-grade (TIG) and that he be allowed to retire as a colonel after having
served only 25 months time-in-grade. SAFPC disapproved the request for the
TIG waiver. The applicant had the option of withdrawing his retirement
request and working with AFCMO to establish a retirement date that would
have allowed him to retire as a colonel. The applicant made a voluntary
choice to retire on 1 January 2000 as a lieutenant colonel.
AFCMOB states that the three points highlighted by the applicant in his
letter to the Board provided no new information to indicate that the ruling
by the SAFPC should be set aside. The applicant elected to leave the Air
Force to address family stress presumably brought on by his very successful
career. He did not attempt to allow the Air Force to help him with these
career stresses. His claim that his career is unique is without merit as
is his claim that the initial disapproval of his TIG waiver was less than
above board. In short, the applicant had the option of retiring as a
colonel; he elected not to. Therefore, AFCMOB recommends the applicant’s
request for retroactive promotion to the grade of colonel be disapproved
(Exhibit C).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that he elected
to retire when he did because he had too. He could not wait. In
retrospect, he does not regret the decision that he made two years ago. It
stabilized his family and he has worked hard at filling the void from 2
decades of military service. It was unfortunate because he had a great
career opportunity in the Air Force, but sometimes things just happen.
Military service is indeed service before self and before family. He
states that he believes he has provided additional information about his
deteriorating family situation and still firmly requests a retroactive
retirement in the grade of colonel (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. We agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case to
include his burdening family matters and his request to the Secretary of
the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) to waive the required three years
time-in-grade (TIG) needed for him to retire in the grade of Colonel.
While the Board finds it commendable that he chose his family over his
career, it appears that at the time of his request for voluntary
retirement, the applicant was aware of his available options and the
possible ramifications of his decision. By his own admission he states
that he elected to retire when he did, because he had too, he couldn’t wait
and he doesn’t regret his decision. Therefore, we find no compelling basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. 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 involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 24 October 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jul 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFCMOB, dated 5 Sep 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Sep 01.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response dated 10 Oct 01.
HENRY ROMO JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02723
A complete copy of the advisory opinion is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION: The applicant asserts he is not applying for a TIG waiver under Section 1370(a)(2)(D) but that his retirement in the grade of LTC be approved under Section 1370(a)(2)(A) based on his more than two years of service in that grade; or, in the alternative, his DOR for LTC be changed to reflect three years TIG based on the equities...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02143
On 31 Aug 11, he retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel, having served in the grade of colonel for two years and eight months as a full colonel. The applicant contends that an OPR for the period 16 Jan 97 thru 26 Jun 97 should have been accomplished and were it not for its omission from is officer selection record (OSR), he would have been promoted BPZ. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence...
On 18 October 1994, applicant’s commander notified him that a Secretarial determination of satisfactory service, as required by 10 USC 1370, would be made by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council in deciding the grade in which applicant would be retired. This grade determination resulted in his retirement in the grade of major. We believe that the actions taken by the Air Force were the result of a thorough consideration of the applicant's circumstances and that there was...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1996-02760
On 18 October 1994, applicant’s commander notified him that a Secretarial determination of satisfactory service, as required by 10 USC 1370, would be made by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council in deciding the grade in which applicant would be retired. This grade determination resulted in his retirement in the grade of major. We believe that the actions taken by the Air Force were the result of a thorough consideration of the applicant's circumstances and that there was...
Despite the delays in passing the FY 1998 NDAA, the Air Force had the authority to implement the program. This resulted in not passing the authorization bill in a timely manner thus denying him the opportunity to retire in grade and forcing him to make a decision to submit his retirement application in order to get on with his post-Air Force career. The applicant contends that because the passage of the FY 1998 NDAA was delayed, he had to make a decision whether to apply for retirement in...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a member of the Air Force Reserve, was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) when her disability case was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) in December 1999, for a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder. Counsel provided a statement supporting the applicant’s requests to change the IG findings; credit satisfactory service to 20 plus years; change the AF...
If it had he would not have separated from the Air Force. DPPRR states that on page 30 of the applicant’s original package, it is clearly documented that in October 1990, the applicant was diagnosed with Sarcoidosis and in April 1994 with Hepatitis C. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s letter dated 13 August 2001 further states that the member was aware of his medical condition at the time of separation. The applicant’s medical records clearly show that he was diagnosed with “Hepatitis C” in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01089
His active duty (AD) service from 18 Jan 01 until 31 May 02, be credited as the highest grade held of lieutenant colonel. On 31 May 02, after 21 years and 18 days of active service, the applicant was released in the grade of major from AD and converted to a traditional Reserve status (IMA) on 1 Jun 02. Reserve Order BA-475, dated 4 Jun 02, ordered the applicant’s promotion to the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel with a date of rank (DOR) of 18 Jan 01 and an effective date of 1 Jun 02,...
At that time, an officer was required to serve three years in- grade in order to retire in-grade unless (as he was led to believe) a waiver was granted by the President. At that time, an officer was required to serve three years in grade in order to retire in grade unless (as applicant was led to believe) a waiver was granted by the President. His application included a request to waive Section 1370, Title 10, U.S.C., which requires officers in the grade above major or lieutenant...