RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00847
INDEX CODE: 131.09
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect that he was appointed into the Air
Force Reserve in the grade of lieutenant colonel (0-5).
By amendment, a promotion order be issued based on his Senate
confirmation for promotion to the grade of commander (0-5), United
States Naval Reserve, and his securing a valid lieutenant colonel
position.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
At the time of his appointment in the Air Force Reserve, his rank was
based on his equivalent rank while on active duty with the Navy. The
Navy has now corrected his record to reflect that, at the time of his
separation from the Navy and appointment in the Air Force Reserve, he
had been selected for promotion to 0-5. He is requesting that his Air
Force appointment order and/or appropriate records be corrected to
reflect that, at the time of his appointment to the Air Force Reserve,
he had been selected to the equivalent rank of lieutenant colonel.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded
statement, his Complaint of Wrongs under Article 138, Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ), along with all endorsements and final
adjudication by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy,
correspondence concerning his request for and results of the Special
Selection Board, and other documents associated with the matter under
review.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in
the grade of major, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Aug 95.
His Total Years Service Date (TYSD) and Total Federal Commissioned
Service Date (TFCSD) is 17 May 85.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPA recommended denial. AFPC/DPA noted that, on 22 May 00, the
Reserve Appointment Programs Branch, ARPC/DPABA, received the
applicant’s Air Force Reserve commissioning application package
requesting an interservice transfer from the United States Naval
Reserve to the Air Force Reserve. Prior to DPABA receiving the
applicant’s commissioning application package, a “Complaint of Wrongs”
with the Navy was filed under Article 138, UCMJ, requesting that a
“Special Fitness Report” be removed from the applicant’s record and
promotion to commander (USN 0-5) be reevaluated. As a result of the
Navy’s decision, the applicant requested and was granted a Special
Selection Board in accordance with (IAW) SECNAV Instruction 1401.lB.
The Bureau of Naval Personnel convened this Board on 7 Sep 00. On 3
Jan 01, the Senate confirmed the applicant's nomination to the rank of
commander. In accordance with SECNAV Instruction 1401.lB, the
selection would be retroactive and the date of rank (DOR) would be
assigned as if applicant had been selected by the Fiscal Year 2000
(FY00) Selection Board. The DOR was established as 1 Sep 00, per the
Department of The Navy, Special Promotion Selection Board letter,
dated 11 May 01
According to DPA, on 26 May 00, the applicant was appointed into the
Air Force Reserve as a major IAW Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2005,
Appointment in Commissioned Grades and Designation and Assignment in
Professional Categories - Reserve of the Air Force and United States
Air Force, Table 2.3, “Appointment Grade and Computation of TYSD, Date
of Rank (DOR), & Total Federal Commissioned Service Date TFCSD,”
Rule 8, which states, “If the individual is an officer of a Reserve
component of another uniformed service (except PHS) and interservice
transfers to a Reserve component of the Air Force in the same
competitive category, then appointment in the grade held in the parent
service. Compute the TYSD by backdating the date of appointment by
the total amount of service credit awarded according to AFI 36-2604
and this instruction. The DOR is the DOR held in the parent service
adjusted for any periods of inactive status. The TFCSD is the same as
that held in the parent service. The TYSD and DOR must not place the
officer beyond mandatory phase points for promotion to the next higher
Reserve grade.” The applicant’s appointment to the Air Force Reserve
as a major (26 May 00) was prior to the effective date of promotion to
the grade of commander in the US Naval Reserve (1 Sep 00).
A complete copy of the ARPC/DPA evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response
indicating that ARPC appointed him based on his permanent rank on 26
May 00; however, there is no prohibition from issuing a subsequent
promotion order based on his Senate confirmation. His original
request was to correct his appointment order and/or appropriate
records. If ARPC is unable to change his appointment order due to a
date of rank later than his date of appointment, he requests that ARPC
issue a promotion order based on his Senate confirmation and his
securing a valid lieutenant colonel position.
Applicant’s complete response and additional documentary evidence are
at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Pursuant to the Board’s staff request, the ARPC/DPA provided an
additional advisory and indicated that the applicant is unable to
carry his promotion to commander from the United States Naval Reserve
to the Air Force Reserve as a lieutenant colonel. His appointment in
the Air Force Reserve was prior to his promotion in the United States
Naval Reserve. In their view, the most appropriate way to correct the
applicant’s records if the Board decides to grant relief is to:
a. Authorize the applicant to apply for reinstatement into the
United States Naval Reserve with no break in service, voiding the
naval discharge.
b. Rescind the applicant’s Air Force Reserve commission.
Rescind the applicant’s Air Force Reserve appointment order.
c. Recoup any pay and compensation given to the applicant while
in the Air Force Reserve.
d. Authorize interservice transfer to the Air Force Reserve
from the United States Naval Reserve, effective 3 Sep 00, with the
rank of lieutenant colonel.
A complete copy of the ARPC/DPA evaluation is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant provided a response to the additional advisory opinion and
indicated that the entire case is due to the improper actions of one
superior officer and the lengthy administrative process required to
investigate and correct the effects of this injustice. In his view,
ARPC seeks to further penalize him for something over which he had no
control.
Applicant’s complete response and additional documentary evidence
(letter from his squadron commander) are attached at Exhibit H.
Subsequent to the applicant’s response, his wing commander provided a
statement in support of his appeal, which is attached 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable injustice. The evidence of record indicates
that the applicant was a lieutenant commander (0-4) on active duty in
the United States Navy who resigned his commission, was transferred to
the United States Naval Reserve, and was ultimately appointed a major
(0-4) in the Air Force Reserve on 26 May 00. Prior to his appointment
in the Air Force Reserve, the applicant filed a Complaint of Wrongs
under Article 138, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), regarding
a fitness report. The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy found
the fitness report was unjustified and he was granted an SSB. The
applicant was subsequently selected for promotion to the grade of 0-5
by the SSB as though he had been selected by the selection board while
he was on active duty, with an effective date of 1 Sep 00, which was
confirmed by the Senate on 3 Jan 01. Since the applicant’s
appointment into the Air Force Reserve was prior to the effective date
of this promotion to the grade of 0-5, we do not believe that his
records should be corrected to show that he was appointed in the Air
Force Reserve in the grade of lieutenant colonel. Nevertheless, after
a thorough review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are
of the opinion that it is in the interest of justice to have the
applicant’s records corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the
Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel (0-5), with an effective date of 1
Sep 00. We believe the most appropriate way to accomplish this is to
show that he was selected for promotion to the Reserve grade of
lieutenant colonel by a position vacancy promotion board. In our
view, the applicant has earned the promotion to 0-5 and should not be
denied assuming this rank because of his unusual situation.
Furthermore, the applicant fully has the support of his superiors. In
view foregoing, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected
as set forth below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was selected for
promotion to the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel by the Fiscal
Year 2001 (FY01) Reserve of the Air Force Line and Health Professions
Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Promotion Selection Board, which
convened in June 2000, with an effective date and date of rank (DOR)
of 1 Sep 00.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 8 Aug 01 and 10 Jan 02, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Ms. Melinda J. Loftin, Member
Mr. Dale O. Jackson, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPA, dated 25 May 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, dated 19 Jun 01, w/atch.
Exhibit F. Letter, ARPC/DPA, dated 13 Nov 01.
Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 01.
Exhibit H. Letter, applicant, dated 5 Dec 01, w/atch.
Exhibit I. Letter, in applicant’s behalf, dated 15 Dec 01.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 01-00847
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 he was selected for
promotion to the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel by the Fiscal
Year 2001 (FY01) Reserve of the Air Force Line and Health Professions
Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy Promotion Selection Board, which
convened on 19 June 2000, with an effective date and date of rank
(DOR) of 1 Sep 00.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD), Total Years Service Date (TYSD), Pay Date, and Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) are in error. With his five years in the active Air Force, he had almost eighteen years of military service when he was informed in Jan 00, that he would be discharged immediately. There was no evidence that the applicant was informed by ARPC of the implications of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00089
This section states, “…a reserve officer’s years of service include all service, other than constructive service, of the officer as a commissioned officer of any uniformed service (other than service as a warrant officer).” The applicant believes that use of the time as a warrant officer should not count when computing time for establishing MSD. Applicant’s complete response to the additional Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00847
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force capped her years of service credit at seven years and the grade of captain. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 3 Jul 02 and 11 Oct 02 for review and response. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence that the applicant’s constructive...
The Board directed that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that he was not released from active duty on 8 Mar 96 under the provisions of AFI 36-3209 (Misconduct), transferred to the Kansas Air National Guard on 2 Apr 96, discharged from the Kansas Air National Guard on 31 Jul 97, and assigned to the Retired Reserve on 2 Aug 97; but was continued on active duty until 31 Jan 99; and, that he was released from active duty on 31 Jan 99 for the Convenience of the Government...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03885
Applicant was appointed in the Reserve of the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel on 30 Sep 02, under the Retired Active Duty Reserve Accession Program (RADRAP). Since the applicant must be retired to apply under the Retired Active Duty Reserve Accession Program the applicant was not placed on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) from the Active Duty List (ADL). Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. In the applicant’s response to the HQ USAF/JAG opinion, he...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02421
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When she transferred from the Navy to the Air Force Reserve, she should have been credited for her DEP time, and that her pay grade should have reflected her prior enlisted service with 16 years of total credit toward pay. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPA indicated that administrative actions have been taken to correct the applicant’s...
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPA recommends the application be denied. The ARPC/DPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Promotion Board Secretariat, HQ ARPC/DPB, stated that the applicant provided a copy of the mandatory [in- and above-the- promotion zone (I/APZ)] and Position Vacancy (PV) date of rank (DOR) requirements for the 99 March Chaplains Captain Selection Board. As DPB previously stated, HQ ARPC/HC provided a letter attesting that the IMA chaplains did not have any PV quotas available for the FY00 Captains...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02919
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02919 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be appointed to the grade of major in the Air Force Reserve based on new promotion phase points effective 19 Dec 01. AFI 36-2005, Table 2.3, Rule 8 states “appoint in the grade held in the parent...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00998
In addition, the Air Force Instruction (AFI) stated that an officer transferring into the Air Force should not be given a DOR that subjects them to a promotion board within one year of the transfer or without a completed officer performance report (OPR) on file. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) which is included at Exhibit...