Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03692
Original file (BC-2003-03692.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-03692
            INDEX CODE 110.01  131.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His retirement date of 1 Feb 98 be extended at least four  more  years
so he would have 20 years of commissioned  service,  and  that  he  be
considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel (LTC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was ordered to retire with 15 years, 5 months and 20 days of active
commissioned service, which constitutes grave error and injustice. The
“high tenure” for major is 20 years of  active  commissioned  service.
His enlisted active service should not have been considered so that he
could serve for at least four more years, during which time  he  would
have been promoted and continued to serve for a full 30 years. Through
no fault of his own, the  Air  Force  retired  him  involuntarily  and
prematurely.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant had prior Regular and Reserve enlisted service. Based on
his 17 Dec 82 Statement of Service, his Total Active Federal  Military
Service (TAFMS) date is  25  Oct  77  and  his  Total  Active  Federal
Commission Service (TAFCS) date is 13 Sep 81.

The applicant was considered but not selected  for  promotion  to  the
grade of LTC by the Calendar Year 1996A  (CY96A)  and  the  CY97B  LTC
selection boards.

He retired in the grade of major on 1 Feb 98 with 20 years,  3  months
and 7 days of total active service.

Through AFBCMR action on 6 Apr 99, the  applicant  was  considered  by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97B LTC  board  on  10 Jan 00;
however, he was not selected.

He then submitted a new Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF)  with  an
upgraded promotion recommendation and was administratively granted SSB
consideration for the CY97B board, but again was not selected.

Through a second AFBCMR  action  on  14  May  02,  the  applicant  was
considered, but not selected, by SSB for the CY96A LTC board on 12 Nov
02.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPRRP notes AFI 36-3203 states the mandatory retirement of  a
Regular major is no later than the first day of the  seventh  calendar
month after the month in which the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) or
designee approves the board report when the officer has  twice  failed
selection for promotion when eligible for retirement  under  any  law.
Under Title 10, USC, Section 637, a selection  board  may  continue  a
major that has been twice nonselected for LTC, subject to the needs of
the service. If selected for  continuation,  a  major  is  subject  to
discharge or retirement on the last day  of  the  month  in  which  he
completes 24 years  of  active  commissioned  service,  unless  he  is
promoted to  the  Regular  grade  of  LTC.   Title  10,  USC,  Section
632(a)(3) permits a major to be retained to complete 20 years TAFMS if
he has twice failed selection to LTC.  Title 10,  USC,  Section  8911,
states that Regular commissioned officers are eligible  to  retire  if
they have 20 years TAFMS, and only 10 of those years  need  be  active
service as a  commissioned  officer.  The  applicant  was  mandatorily
retired because he was twice nonselected for LTC and was not  selected
for continuation. The SSB reaffirmed his nonselection  for  promotion.
There is no “high tenure” for an officer. The applicant  had  over  20
years of TAFMS,  of  which  over  10  years  were  TAFCS.   Denial  is
recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ  AFPC/DPPPO  reiterates  the  governing  directives  cited  by   HQ
AFPC/DPPRRP. Continuation of an officer and the period of continuation
on active duty are subject to the approval of the SAF. For  the  CY97B
board, all Reserve and Regular  majors  in  the  Chaplain  Corps  were
continued until the last  day  of  the  month  in  which  they  became
retirement eligible for normal 20-year retirement. All  chaplains  who
were retirement eligible as of the mandatory date of separation  (DOS)
(last day of the sixth month after approval of the board report)  were
required to retire no later than the mandatory DOS.  Since  the  board
results were approved on 9 Jul 97, the mandatory DOS  was  established
as 31 Jan 98. With the exception of Catholic chaplains,  no  chaplains
have  been  continued  past  20  years  of   total   active   military
service/retirement eligibility. Approving this request would give  the
applicant an entitlement his peers did not receive; therefore,  denial
is recommended.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 27 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 retirement date should be extended and he be  considered
for promotion to LTC. The  applicant’s  contentions  are  duly  noted;
however, we do not find these uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to circumvent the requirements  of
statute and the rationale provided by the Air Force. The applicant was
twice passed over for LTC, was not selected for continuation, and  had
over 20 years of TAFMS and 10 years of TAFCS. We therefore agree  with
the recommendations of the Air Force and 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  find  no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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(s)   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 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 7 April 2004, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                                  Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
                                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
                                  Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03692 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Sep 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 21 Nov 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Feb 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Feb 04.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000186

    Original file (0000186.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    As a result of an Army Board for Correction of Military Records appeal, the applicant was considered and selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by an SSB for the 1992 Reserve Components Promotion Board. The board noted that the applicant will have an opportunity for a Regular Air Force commission if he is selected for promotion to colonel (O- 6) by one of the SSBs he is already scheduled to meet or by the CY00A Colonel Chaplain Selection Board. Based on a review of the evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9703198

    Original file (9703198.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the two Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 5 July 1989 and 5 July 1990 should be voided and removed from his records; the Overseas Duty History portion of the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) should be changed; or, that a signed copy of the citation of the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) should be inserted into the OSR. Although the overseas duty history was not reflected on the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03198

    Original file (BC-1997-03198.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the two Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 5 July 1989 and 5 July 1990 should be voided and removed from his records; the Overseas Duty History portion of the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) should be changed; or, that a signed copy of the citation of the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) should be inserted into the OSR. Although the overseas duty history was not reflected on the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03220

    Original file (BC-2005-03220.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/JA recommends denial and notes that, contrary to the suggestion by the applicant, he was offered an opportunity to request reinstatement to active duty as a major and he obviously opted for the alternative that awarded him service credit for those years without his having to actually return to active duty. In this particular case, the applicant, who was awarded retroactive service credit for the more than 12 years his record...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03220A

    Original file (BC-2005-03220A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Additional AFBCMR applications resulted in the applicant’s record being corrected, on 25 Feb 04, to show he was tendered a Regular appointment effective 8 Feb 81, and that he served in the grade of major until his retirement in that grade on 1 Jul 93. The ROP contained factual errors and did not even come close to summarizing his remarks and the new evidence he provided. The record contains a letter dated January 15, 2003, to applicant from AFPC/DPOC informing him that as a result of his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803569

    Original file (9803569.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03569 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY96A (4 Mar 96) Major Selection Board (P0496A), with inclusion of the corrected Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) provided; the citations...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01681

    Original file (BC-2003-01681.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0001988

    Original file (0001988.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01988 (Case 4) INDEX CODE: 136.01, 131.00, COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement grade of major be changed to lieutenant colonel and his retirement date of 1 Jul 95 be changed to 1 Jul 00, with recomputation of his 1405 service date to reflect he retired from active duty with 22 years...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9601946

    Original file (9601946.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02738

    Original file (BC-2006-02738.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s complete review is at Exhibit F. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/JA states they cannot support the applicant's request that he be given a full 30-year retirement in the grade of colonel given that he only served 22 years of actual active duty time. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit H. ___________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL...