RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00398
INDEX CODE: 131.09
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 AUGUST 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS:
A waiver of his three-year time-in-grade (TIG) requirement for
retirement as a lieutenant colonel (O5). He be retired in the grade
of lieutenant colonel rather than major.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He interpreted an e-mail from a technician in the comptroller
squadron, more than two years prior to his retirement, to mean that
his final basic pay as an O5 would be used to calculate his retired
pay. He used this information to plan for his retirement and
requested retirement upon completion of his active duty service
commitment of 15 May 2004.
His retirement benefited the Air Force at a time when the service was
exploring ways to reduce total personnel numbers in non-critical
areas. Furthermore, incomplete and misleading counsel directly
contributed to his decision to retire at the end of his service
obligation, with two years TIG.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement,
a copy of his retirement orders and an e-mail. The applicant’s
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
1 November 1982. His Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date
(TAFCSD) is 6 October 1989. He was progressively promoted to the
grade of lieutenant colonel (O5), with an effective date and date of
rank of 25 June 2002.
On 15 January 2004, the applicant applied for voluntary retirement (AF
Form 1160, Military Retirement Actions), with an effective date of 1
June 2004, and to be retired in the grade of major (Block IV
(Remarks).
The applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 May 2004 and retired
in the grade of major, effective 1 June 2004. His highest grade held
on active duty was lieutenant colonel. He had completed a total of 21
years and 7 months of active service for retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied. DPPRRP states
the applicant requested a voluntary retirement and requested to retire
in the grade of major. He did not have two-years time-in-grade (TIG)
on his requested retirement date of 1 June 2004 so he did not meet the
requirement to request a waiver under the HQ USAF/DP message, dated
12126Z May 04. At the time of the applicant’s requested retirement
date, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) authorized, effective 6 May
2004, a reduction of the three-year TIG requirement for lieutenant
colonels to retire in grade with no less than two-years TIG and
delegated approval/disapproval authority to HQ AFPC/DPPR. Under the
HQ USAF/DP message, the applicant was not authorized to request a
later retirement date solely for the purpose of attaining the two-
years TIG and he did not request for HQ AFPC/DPPR to extend his
retirement date for hardship or in the best interest of the Air Force.
Further, he did not request a Presidential waiver. The HQ
AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 25
February 2005 for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office (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 error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case.
However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. In
view of the above and absent evidence to the contrary, we find no
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 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 Docket Number BC-2005-
00398 in Executive Session on 17 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 15 Feb 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Feb 05.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
At the time of his retirement, he had completed a total of 20 years and 29 days of active service. 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: HQ AFPC/DPPRRP recommends the application be denied. However, we agree with the opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02472
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPF recommends approval to restore 35 days of lost leave. The complete DPF evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAOO recommends denial to the applicant’s request to correct his separation and retirement dates to reflect 28 February 2005 and 1 March 2005, respectively. The Board notes the Force Shaping Program in force at that time stated phase II officers serving on active duty in the Limited EAD...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03437
However, colonels are managed by the Air Force Colonel Matters Office not AFPC. Counsel discusses the issue of the applicant’s voluntary retirement and points out that the issue at hand is the time in grade (TIG) waiver to allow the applicant to retire in the grade commensurate with her last six years of active service. Also served in colonel positions doing colonels jobs for more than three years while still a lieutenant colonel.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00990
Because the applicant had over 16 years TAFMS at the time the discharge board recommended his discharge for misconduct, the applicant was eligible to request lengthy service consideration from the SAF. DPPRRP concludes the applicant submitted no new additional evidence that there was an error or injustice in the discharge proceedings or in lengthy service consideration. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03901
In a letter dated 18 Jan 06 (Exhibit C), HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 requested the applicant explain why she felt she should have been awarded the grade of captain when she entered active duty. The time between her commissioning as a lLT in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Nov 78 and when she entered active duty on 10 Jan 79 is not active service nor creditable as active service for retirement. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jan 06, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01251
He has suffered an injustice because had his records been complete at the time the PRF was prepared, he would have received a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation from his senior rater. AFPC/DPPPE contends that the applicant’s senior rater did review accurate information within the applicant’s record at the time the CY99B PRF was completed. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03490
Both the applicant’s DD Form 214 and retirement order accurately reflect that, although he held the grade of staff sergeant on his final day of active duty on 28 February 1978, his retirement proceeded under the law that pertains to commissioned officers who have 20 or more years of active service and who also have at least 10 years of active service as a commissioned officer. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPRRP recommended...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03688
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03688 INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 JUN 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY04B (12 July 2004) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board, with a...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-03569
The applicant had less than 2 years TIG on her requested retirement date of 1 Aug 01 and did not qualify for the waiver to retire with two years TIG. If a waiver to the 3-year TIG requirement had existed on 1 Feb 03, her retired pay would still be the same. There is no difference in benefits accorded to her if retired in the grade of major or retired in the grade of Lt Col. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit...