RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-01130
INDEX CODE 110.02
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The reason for his 1993 discharge be changed from “involuntary” to
“voluntary.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not aware of the long-term consequences of allowing himself to
remain on active duty after the first nonselection for major. In the
drawdown era, a voluntary separation restricted and penalized
individuals from returning as civil servants. He essentially let the
clock run out because he understood that in this environment the
probability of promotion at the second promotion board was really non-
existent for a nonrated officer. After the second nonselection, he
could process out without any restrictions regarding civil service
employment. Years later, all of the penalties and restrictions were
lifted. Had he known a twice nonselect for promotion and subsequent
involuntary separation would have precluded him from ever becoming an
officer in the military again, including the National Guard, he would
never have waited for the second nonselect. He believes the Guard
would accept him as an officer.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant and entered active
duty on 6 Jun 80. He was promoted to the grade of captain with a date
of rank (DOR) of 6 Jun 84. During the period in question, he was the
program manager for integrated product development at Hanscom AFB, MA.
The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to the
grade of major by the Calendar Year 1991A (CY91A) and CY92C promotion
boards.
He was given a mandatory date of separation (DOS) of 31 Aug 93, in
accordance with Title 10, USC, Section 632, and AFR 36-12, Chapter 3,
Involuntary Separation. The law required separation no later than the
first day of the seventh calendar month beginning after the month in
which the President approved the report of the board that considered
him for the second time.
The applicant was honorably and involuntarily discharged on 31 Aug 93,
for two nonselections, after 13 years, 5 months, and 22 days of active
service. According to his DD Form 214, he received a lump sum of
$52,695.30 in separation pay.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRS asserts the discharge was consistent with the procedural
and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. The reason
for the applicant’s discharge was based on his nonselection and the
law. If his separation had been considered a “voluntary” separation,
he would not have received $52,695.30 separation pay. He did not
identify any errors or injustices and his case should be denied.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 13 Feb 04 for review and comment within 30 days. As of
this date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded his involuntary discharge should be changed to “voluntary.”
The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find
these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force. We therefore adopt
the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has not sustained his burden of having suffered either an
error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we conclude this appeal should be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of 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 21 April 2004 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01130 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, dated 12 Feb 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
In the applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations, he requests that the AFBCMR direct his record be corrected to 'reflect selection for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY94 promotion board. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a response, with attachments, which is attached at Exhibit I. However, after a thorough review of the evidence of...
Therefore, we recommend that her record, to include the “Definitely Promote” recommendation on the CY97C PRF, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by special selection board (SSB) for the CY97C Central Major Selection Board. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Promotion Recommendation, AF Form 709,...
In the applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations, he requests that: 1. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include corrected Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) reflecting the duty title "Chief Airborne Space Applications Systemsll, effective 20 January 1994 , be considered 5 for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Boards (SSBs) for the Calendar Years 1995A and 1996A Central...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 June 1998 for review and response. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by special selection...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03331
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03331 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01 COUNSEL: MR. THOMAS C. HOUCK HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 APRIL 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reinstatement to active duty, with back pay, and constructive promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1999-00459
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPE recommended denial indicating the HQ ACC took the appropriate measures to ensure officers assigned to the 55th Wing were given a fair and impartial review. Should the Board determine there has been an error or injustice concerning the Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) used at the applicant’s 1992 and 1993 promotion boards, AFPC/JA recommends that the applicant be offered a review by a Special Selection Board (SSB) or...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01518
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01518 INDEX CODE 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Selection Briefs (OSB) for the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A) and CY01B Central Colonel Selection Boards reflect a 13 May 97 assignment history entry of “X46F4, HQ --- (---- MED TRANSCOM)” rather than “X46F3, ---, AEROMED EVAC...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03173
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03173 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2007B (CY07B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB). Applicant’s complete submission,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00859
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00859 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be offered continuation to serve as a captain in the Air Force until she is eligible for retirement. In support of her request, applicant’s superior submitted a letter of recommendation for continuation. She is currently...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00291
Or, in the alternative, He be reinstated to active duty and given “valid” promotion consideration by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1991A (CY91A) and CY91B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSBs); i.e., with overall recommendations of “Definitely Promote(DP)” on the Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) and faithfully/realistically replicated competition. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. The Senior Attorney-Advisor, HQ AFPC/JA, provides a...