RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00782
                                             INDEX CODE:  100.00
      XXXXXXX                           COUNSEL:  NONE

      XXXXXXX                           HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  5 SEP 2006


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His retirement date of 1 February 1993 be changed to 1 March 1998.

2.    He be considered for promotion to the grade of brigadier  general  (O-
7) by a Special Selection Board (SSB) using O-5 records, to include the  old
AF Form 11, that were used for  his  selection  to  O-6.   If  selected  for
promotion by the SSB, he be considered for promotion to the grade  of  major
general (O-8) by an SSB using the came conditions.

3.    He be voluntarily ordered to active duty during the  mobilization  for
Operation Enduring Freedom and serve until he had served the amount of  time
in grade he would have had on 28 February 1998 (9 years and 1 month).

4.    He be allowed to increase his Survivor Benefit Plan  (SBP)  amount  to
the maximum benefit with the cost increase effective 22 February 2005.

5.    He be  paid  for  152  ½  days  accrued  leave  as  an  O-6  effective
28 February 1998  and  the  60  days  accrued  leave  he  was  paid  for  on
31 January 1993, be paid at the O-6 rate, or in the alternative, he be  paid
for 60 days as an O-6 effective 28 February 1998, or if returned  to  active
duty, 60 days be added to his active duty leave account.

6.    He be allowed to audit Air War College (AWC) in  residence  on  active
duty.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Had he been selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by  the  original
selection board, he would not have been eligible  for  the  Selective  Early
Retirement Board (SERB), and would not have been  forced  to  retired  on  1
February 1993.

Based on his promotion to colonel effective 1 February 1989, by an  SSB,  he
would have 9 years and 1 month of time in grade by his mandatory  retirement
date of 1 March 1998 and his promotion to O-7 and O-8 are still an  unknown.
 If he is  selected  for  promotion,  he  will  gladly  serve  10  years  of
additional active duty.

He did not have any maximum coverage under the SBP before  he  was  promoted
to colonel because as a retired O-5, he  could  not  afford  to  select  the
maximum coverage.  As such, it would be unjust for him to pay any back  fees
or interest to any other date other than 22 February 2005, the date  of  his
promotion order to colonel.

Had he not been forced to retire on 1 February 1993, he would not have  been
paid for the 60 days accrued leave on 31 January 1993 and  would  have  lost
it.  Further, if his request to change his retirement date is  approved,  he
will have accrued 152 ½ days leave for the period  1  February  1993  to  28
February 1998.  Since he did not have an opportunity to use the leave as  he
would have had he remained on active duty, he will lose all 152  ½  days  if
his request for payment for the leave is denied.  If he is  called  back  to
active duty and is not paid for 152 ½ days, he should be allowed  to  recoup
60 days of the accrued leave for his active duty leave record.

No one knows what his candidacy would have been in 1987, if his records  had
been correct.  He already had completed all Professional Military  Education
(PME) courses by correspondence, with  the  exception  of  Squadron  Officer
School (SOS), and believes he would have been selected  as  an  in-residence
candidate for AWC.  For him to attend AWC in residence in 2005 or  later  in
any other status except as an auditor would be  a  high  mountain  to  climb
after being off active duty for over 12 years.  Attending AWC as an  auditor
would quickly get him back up to speed in the Air Force.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was commissioned a second  lieutenant  on  13  May  1968,  and
entered active duty.

On 27 June 1990, the AFBCMR considered the applicant’s request  that  he  be
awarded the  Purple  Heart  (PH),  and  that  his  record,  to  include  the
Distinguished Flying  Cross  (DFC)  awarded  for  extraordinary  achievement
during  the  period  19 August  1969  to  3 July  1970,  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of colonel by an SSB for the Calendar Years 1987  and
1989 (CY87 & CY89) Central Colonel Boards.  The  AFBCMR  found  insufficient
evidence of an error or injustice to warrant  awarding  the  PH  and  denied
this portion of  the  application;  however,  the  AFBCMR  found  sufficient
evidence to warrant SSB consideration, with the DFC a matter of record.

On  24  December  1991,  the  applicant  applied  for  voluntary  retirement
effective 1 February 1993, excluding him from consideration  by  the  Fiscal
Year 1992 (FY92) SERB that convened on 6 January 1992.

The applicant elected spouse only SBP coverage for his  spouse  based  on  a
reduced amount and his spouse concurred with his election.   He  retired  in
the grade of lieutenant  colonel  on  1 February  1993,  with  29  years,  4
months, and 21 days of active service for retirement.

Based  on  additional  evidence   submitted   by   applicant,   the   AFBCMR
reconsidered his requests on 19 April 1993, and found insufficient  evidence
of an error or injustice.

In  an  application,  dated   10   May   2001,   the   applicant   requested
reconsideration and provided additional documentation; however, on  22  June
2001, he was advised  that  his  request  did  not  meet  the  criteria  for
reconsideration by the AFBCMR.

On 25 February  2004,  the  AFBCMR  reconsidered  applicant’s  requests  for
correction of the certificate and citation to accompany the DFC awarded  for
extraordinary achievement during the period 19 August 1969  through  3  July
1970 to reflect that it was  awarded  for  extraordinary  achievement  on  a
single day (26 December 1969) and found insufficient evidence  of  an  error
or an injustice to warrant favorable action.   By  majority  vote,  however,
the AFBCMR found insufficient evidence to warrant awarding  the  PH.   After
considering all of the circumstances of the  case,  however,  the  Director,
Air Force Review Boards Agency, accepted the opinion of the minority  member
and directed the applicant be awarded the PH.  In addition, he directed  the
DFC awarded for extraordinary achievement during the period 19  August  1969
to  3  July  1970,  be  corrected  to  reflect  that  it  was  awarded   for
extraordinary  achievement  on  26  December  1969,  and  the  applicant  be
considered for promotion to the grade of colonel for the Calendar Year  1987
(CY87)  Central  Colonel  Board.   For  an  accounting  of  the  facts   and
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and the  rationale  of
the earlier decision by the Board, see the  Second  Addendum  to  Record  of
Proceedings at Exhibit C.

Applicant’s CRSC application was  approved  on  23  February  2004  for  his
malignant growth  genitourinary,  rated  at  40%.   However,  his  remaining
conditions were denied.

On 21 April 2004, a DD Form 215 was issued to add the Purple Heart  (PH)  to
the 31 January 1993 DD Form 214.

Applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of  colonel  by  an  SSB
which convened on 13 September 2004, for the CY87 Central Colonel Board  and
selected.  He was retroactively promoted to the grade of  colonel  effective
1 February 1989.

On 26 July 2005, the AFBCMR considered  and  denied  his  request  that  his
degenerative arthritis and condition of the skeletal system be  assessed  as
combat related in order to qualify for  compensation  under  the  CRSC  Act.
For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and   circumstances   surrounding   the
applicant’s separation, and the rationale of the  earlier  decision  by  the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit D.

Department of the Air Force special order  AC-006373,  dated  8 March  2005,
amended applicant’s retirement orders (AC-004432, dated 10 January 1992)  to
reflect his retirement grade and  highest  grade  held  on  active  duty  as
colonel, rather than lieutenant colonel.

Based on his DOR to O-6 of 1 February 1989, had he remained on active  duty,
he would have  first  been  eligible  for  promotion  consideration  by  the
Calendar Year 1991 (CY91) Brigadier General Promotion Board.

By letter of 11 April 2005, DFAS-DE advised the applicant they computed  the
difference in his 60 days Lump Sum Leave and Dislocation Allowance and  that
there exists no authority for the payment of interest on back pay awards.

Applicant’s PME profile, follows:

     Year  Course      Method

      1979  Marine Command and Staff College Correspondence

      1975  Industrial College of the Air Force    Correspondence

      1974  Air War College  Correspondence

      1973  Air Command and Staff College    Correspondence

      1972  Squadron Officer School     In Residence

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of  the  applicant’s  request  to  change  his
retirement date.  AFPC/DPPRRP states, in part, that  whether  the  applicant
was a lieutenant colonel or colonel, he still would have  met  the  criteria
for consideration by the 6 January 1992  Selective  Early  Retirement  Board
(SERB) and would have had to make a decision whether to  voluntarily  retire
or await the decision of the SERB,  and  if  selected,  retire  on  1 August
1992.  If he had not been selected for early retirement, he would have  been
allowed to continue to serve on active duty until  he  had  30  years  total
active  federal  commissioned  service  and  would  have  had  a   Mandatory
Separation Date (MSD) of 28 February 1998.  His choice to voluntarily  apply
for retirement effective 1 February 1993 gave him six more months of  active
duty than he would have had if the SERB had selected  him  for  a  mandatory
retirement date of 1 August 1992.

The AFPC/DPPRP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPRT recommends the applicant’s request to change his SBP coverage  be
denied and states, in part, that there is  no  evidence  the  applicant  was
improperly counseled prior to his retirement.  The applicant  made  a  valid
SBP election with his spouse’s concurrence.  Further,  Public  Law  108-375,
28 October 2004, authorized  an  SBP  open  enrollment  scheduled  to  begin
1 October 2005, during which he can increase  his  level  of  coverage.   He
offers no explanation for waiting over ten years since he  retired  to  seek
correction.

The AFPC/DPPRT evaluation is at Exhibit F.

AFPC/DPAPDE recommends that if the applicant is returned to active duty  and
placement in Senior  Developmental  Education  (SDE)  is  directed,  that  a
permanent operational deferment be given in lieu of attendance  due  to  the
extended lapse in time since the applicant left active duty.   There  is  no
option for a retiree to audit Air War College (AWC).  Only 114  active  duty
lieutenant  colonels  and  colonels  are  selected  annually   by   a   very
competitive process.  AFPC/DPAPDE handles  the  selection/placement  process
for lieutenant colonels which make up almost 100  of  the  allocations,  and
Air Force Senior Leadership Management Office (AFSLMO)  handles  a  separate
selection/placement process for colonels to compete for 20 allocations.

The AFPC/DPAPDE evaluation is at Exhibit G.

AFPC/DPFF  states,   in   part,   that   applicant’s   records   have   been
administratively corrected to reflect settlement for 60 days lump sum  leave
in the grade of colonel, rather than lieutenant colonel.

The AFPC/DPFF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

AFSLMO/SUR recommends the applicant’s request for an SSB for promotion to O-
7 and O-8 be denied.  AFSLMO/SUR states, in part,  that  SSB  member’s  make
selection by comparing the consideree’s record with  the  benchmark  records
from the lowest score category of selectees and the highest  score  category
of nonselectees  from  the  original  board.   Further,  to  ensure  a  fair
determination is  made,  the  applicant  would  need  to  have  a  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF) written by his senior rater at the time  providing
the board with a promotion recommendation and  his  military  record  as  it
appeared before the original board would be used.

The AFSLMO/SUR evaluation is at Exhibit I.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

While he did voluntarily apply for retirement, it was almost  under  duress.
He knew the chances were very slim as a  lieutenant  colonel  of  not  being
selected by the SERB; however, if he were a colonel at  that  time,  with  a
set of colonel records, he would have taken his chances with the SERB  since
all the odds would have been in his favor.  AFPC/DPPRRP  has  no  idea  what
the SERB would have ruled in  his  case.   His  assignments  and  evaluation
reports would have been completely difference and he  should  be  given  the
benefit of the doubt.

Contrary to AFPC/DPPRT, there was an error at the time of his SBP  election,
through back-dating, he was an O-6.  The reason he did not increase his  SBP
coverage during the 1999 –  2000  open  enrollment  was  because  he  was  a
lieutenant colonel  at  the  time.   His  SBP  election  should  be  changed
regardless of whether or  not  his  retirement  date  is  changed,  and  the
increase in premiums should be  effective  the  date  of  his  promotion  to
colonel (22 February 2005).

Although there is no option for a retiree to audit AWC,  the  Secretary  and
the Chief of Staff (CSAF) can grant waivers  to  any  Air  Force  procedures
that are not covered by public law.  If he returns to active duty,  he  asks
that the Secretary and CSAF be approached about his attendance at AWC as  an
auditor with a recommendation for approval.

He understands how SSBs work  because  he  was  selected  for  promotion  to
colonel through the process; however, his request would most certainly be  a
fair assessment.  Anything different would not provide him a fair chance  at
promotion.  It should not matter whether the records used by the SSB are  O-
5 or O-6 records, only that they be the same for all.   Since  he  does  not
have any O-6 records, O-5 records should be used.  He is unable  to  provide
a PRF by a senior rater because his date  of  eligibility  for  O-7  in  the
primary zone would have been sometime in the 1994 to 1996  timeframe,  after
his 1993 retirement.  As such, no one knows who his senior rater would  have
been.  The records  of  O-5s  do  not  have  a  chance  when  competing  for
promotion against O-6 records.

The evaluations fail to address his request that his  records  be  corrected
to show that he was  voluntarily  ordered  to  active  duty  in  support  of
Operation Enduring Freedom and served until he served the amount of time  in
grade he would have had on 28 February 1998, if his  promotion  to  O-6  had
really been effective 1 February 1989.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit K.

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRP states, in  part,  that  as  an  alternative  to  their  original
recommendation that applicant retire as a colonel  on  1 February  1993,  he
could elect to meet the 6 January 1992 SERB as a colonel and  abide  by  the
supplemental SERB decision.  If he is selected for early retirement  by  the
92 SERB, he would be required to retire as a colonel on 1 June 1992.  If  he
is selected for retention by the 92 SERB, he would be required to also  meet
the 25 January 1994 SERB as a consequent of his retention  on  active  duty,
or elect to retire on 1 January 1995.  If he is not selected  for  retention
by the 94 SERB, he would have to retire not later than 1 October  1994.   If
retained by the 94 SERB, he could then be allowed to retire with 30 years.

The AFPC/DPPRRP evaluation is at Exhibit L.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant does not elect to meet any SERB because there is no  fair  way  he
can compete due to numerous errors in his records  or  insufficient  records
as an O-6.  In addition, the faulty instructions given  to  the  SERBs  with
respect to minority and female officers was wrong and had he been an O-6  at
that time, as a white male officer, he would have been  part  of  the  legal
action to sue the Air Force.  He notes that every  performance  report  that
closed out after 6 May 1987 contains some form of error.   Furthermore,  his
assignments and performance reports are that of  a  passed  over  lieutenant
colonel.  He recommends the board by-pass the 92 and  94  SERBs,  and  allow
his retirement as a colonel on 1 March 1998.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit N.

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/GCM states that prior to changing applicant’s retirement date  to  1998,
the Board should first determine whether  either  the  1992  or  1994  SERBs
would have selected applicant for early retirement, since meeting the  SERBS
would be  a  natural  consequent  of  granting  his  request.   However,  in
deference to his circumstances, if he were to be selected for retirement  by
the 92 SERB, they would not object to his retaining his  current  retirement
date of 1 February 1993.  If retained, he should then meet the 94 SERB,  and
if selected have a retirement date of 1 October  1994,  or  elect  voluntary
retirement on 1 December 1994, in lieu of  meeting  the  94  SERB.   If  the
Board determines there is no possible way to correct  an  injustice,  it  is
within its authority to  grant  the  requested  relief;  however,  they  are
confident the Board can correct the records  in  a  manner  consistent  with
other similarly situated applicants to make  the  process  fair.   They  are
also  confident  that  the  proposed  modified  selection  procedures  would
compensate for possible taint resulting from the Memorandum  of  Instruction
(MOI) used  in  the  original  SERBs.   If  retained  by  both  SERBs,  then
applicant could be retired on 1 March 1998.

The SAF/GCM evaluation is at Exhibit O.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the SAF/GCM evaluation and states, in essence,  that  the
benchmark records used for the SERBs are tainted because  of  the  MOI.   In
this respect, he notes that some of the lowest scoring  records  could  have
been some of the best considered and some of the least  competitive  records
could have not been retained at all, but for the MOI.   Further,  the  SERBs
cannot change his assignments, performance reports, and  decorations,  after
September 1987 to reflect that he was an O-6 selectee up  until  31  January
1989 and an O-6 on 1 February 1989.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit Q.

On 13 December 2005,  applicant  was  provided  a  copy  of  the  Record  of
Proceedings and advisory opinions on a similar case  (94-01703)  for  review
and comment.  Applicant reviewed the documents and  states,  in  part,  that
based on the information provided, he finds it  difficult  to  determine  if
the case provided to him is similar to his.  He notes that his records  were
corrected 11 years after he retired, unlike the  cited  case  in  which  the
member’s records were corrected while he was still on active  duty  and  had
an opportunity to serve 17 months as an O-6.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit S.

________________________________________________________________




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 a probable error or an injustice  warranting  favorable  action
on the applicant’s request for a correction of record to show he  served  on
active duty until his Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) as a  colonel.   Prior
to determining whether or not his retirement date of 1 February 1993  should
be changed, it should  first  be  determined  whether  he  would  have  been
selected for early retirement by either the FY 92 or FY 94  Selective  Early
Retirement Boards (SERBs), or if not selected by the SERBs, would have  been
permitted to remain on active duty until 1 March 1998.  In this respect,  we
note that based on previous corrections to his records,  the  applicant  was
retroactively promoted to the grade of colonel  effective  1 February  1989,
by a Special Selection Board (SSB).  He now requests,  among  other  things,
to have his 1 February  1993  retirement  date  changed  to  1  March  1998,
contending that if he had been originally promoted to the grade  of  colonel
in 1989, he would have remained on active duty until 1  March  1998.   After
thoroughly  review  the  evidence  of  record  and  noting  the  applicant’s
contentions, we agree with the comments of the Secretary of the Air  Force’s
Deputy General Counsel, that if the applicant requests the benefits of  back
pay and increased retired pay, which would be  the  natural  consequence  of
being on active duty in the grade of colonel between 1989 and 1993,  and  an
additional five years between 1993 and 1998, then he should  also  have  the
natural consequence of meeting  the  FY  92  and  FY  94  SERBs.   AFPC  has
recommended the applicant be given the option of either meeting  the  FY  92
SERB, or retiring on his original retirement date of 1 February  1993.   The
applicant has been presented with this option and reaffirms his  request  to
remain on active duty until 1 March 1998, but he does not elect to meet  any
SERB.  While the applicant contends his record cannot fairly compete  before
the SERB SSBs based on the errors to his  records,  we  believe  appropriate
corrections to his records can be made to make the process fair.   For  this
reason,  we  recommend  the  Officer  Performance  Reports  (OPRs)  rendered
subsequent to his 1989 promotion, be removed from his records  and  replaced
with AF Form 77s, Supplemental Evaluation Sheets,  that  read,  “Report  for
this period not available for administrative  reasons  which  were  not  the
fault of the member.”  We note that such relief is fair and consistent  with
similarly situated applicants  who  have  had  their  records  corrected  to
reflect an earlier date of  rank  (DOR).   With  respect,  to  his  concerns
regarding the Memorandum of  Instruction  (MOI)  used  during  the  original
SERBs, the Secretary of the Air Force has prescribed the use of  a  modified
selection process for specifically designated boards  that  compensates  for
possible  harm  that  may  have  been  caused  by  the   equal   opportunity
instruction contained in the MOI.  In addition, the Federal Court of  Claims
slightly  modified  the  process  in  Berkley,  i.e.,  the  record  of   the
consideree need only tie  or  beat  one  retained  benchmark  record  to  be
considered retained.   Therefore,  we  recommend  his  corrected  record  be
considered using this modified selection process for the FY  92  SERB,  and,
if necessary, the FY 94 SERB, and, should he be retained by  either  Special
Board, the results be forwarded to the AFBCMR at  the  earliest  practicable
date so that  all  necessary  and  appropriate  actions  may  be  completed.
Therefore, in view of the above, we recommend his records  be  corrected  to
the extent indicated below.

4.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of error or injustice  concerning  the  remainder  of  applicant’s
requests.  In this respect, we note the following:

      a.    The Board is without authority to direct that he  be  considered
for promotion  to  the  grade  of  brigadier  general  (O-7)  by  a  Special
Selection Board (SSB) using O-5 records, to include  the  old  AF  Form  11,
that was used for his selection to O-6, and if  selected  for  promotion  by
the SSB, providing  him  promotion  consideration  to  the  grade  of  major
general (O-8) by an SSB using the came conditions.  In this regard, we  note
the procedures for conducting SSBs are  statutorily  mandated  by  law.   We
have been  advised  that  even  the  Secretary  must  follow  the  statutory
procedures for conducting SSBs to comply with the law.

      b.    There exists no basis to create a fictitious  period  of  active
service in support of Operation Enduring  Freedom  (OEF).   In  response  to
Senator Bunning’s inquiry in the applicant’s behalf  regarding  this  issue,
the Air Force previously advised that retiree recall decisions are based  on
the needs of the Air Force for the  retired  officer’s  specific  skills  to
undertake  particular  missions  or  assignments,  and  are  not  based   on
arbitrary age considerations.  In the absence of evidence to  the  contrary,
we find no  basis  to  interfere  with  their  prerogative  to  render  this
determination.

      c.     No  evidence  has  been  presented  to  indicate  that  he  was
improperly counseled regarding his options under the Survivor  Benefit  Plan
(SBP), to warrant changing his election.  The applicant contends that  as  a
lieutenant colonel, he  could  not  afford  maximum  SBP  coverage  for  his
spouse;  however,  he  has  failed  to  provide  evidence  to  support  this
contention.  In view of this, and since the Board recognizes that it is  not
unusual for lieutenant colonels to routinely elect maximum SBP coverage  for
their spouse prior  to  their  retirement,  we  find  no  basis  to  warrant
disturbing his valid SBP election.  Furthermore, applicant can increase  his
SBP coverage during the current open enrollment period,  which  will  expire
on 30 September 2006.

      d.    Applicant’s records  have  been  administratively  corrected  to
reflect settlement for 60 days lump sum  leave  in  the  grade  of  colonel,
rather than lieutenant colonel.  If he is retained  beyond  his  1  February
1993 retirement date as a result of the corrections to his records,  similar
administrative corrections will be made to his leave  account.   However,  a
member may not carry forward a leave balance of more than  60  days  into  a
new fiscal year in accordance  with  the  governing  Department  of  Defense
Regulation.

      e.    There exists no provision for him to be  allowed  to  audit  Air
War College (AWC) in residence while on active  duty.   Assuming,  arguendo,
that he is not selected for early retirement by either the FY 92  or  FY  94
SERBs, he  would  have  to  retire  in  1998  upon  reaching  his  Mandatory
Separation Date (MSD)  of  30  years  of  service.   Regardless,  while  the
applicant contends that he would  have  been  selected  as  an  in-residence
candidate for AWC, he provides no corroborative  evidence  to  support  this
contention.

5.  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 issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air  Force  relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.    The Field  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report,  AF  Form  707A,
rendered for the period 2 April 1988 through 1 April 1989, be declared  void
and  removed  from  his  records,  and  be  replaced  with  a   Supplemental
Evaluation Sheet, AF Form 77, containing the  statement,  “Report  for  this
period not available for administrative reasons which were not the fault  of
the member.”

      b.    The Field  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report,  AF  Form  707A,
rendered for the period 2 April 1989 through 23 February 1990,  be  declared
void and removed from his records,  and  be  replaced  with  a  Supplemental
Evaluation Sheet, AF Form 77, containing the  statement,  “Report  for  this
period not available for administrative reasons which were not the fault  of
the member.”

      c.    The Field  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report,  AF  Form  707A,
rendered for the  period  24 February  1990  through  23 February  1991,  be
declared void  and  removed  from  his  records,  and  be  replaced  with  a
Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet,  AF  Form  77,  containing  the  statement,
“Report for this period not available for administrative reasons which  were
not the fault of the member.”

      d.    On 24 December 1991, he did not apply for voluntary  retirement,
effective 1 February 1993.

      e.    The Field  Grade  Officer  Performance  Report,  AF  Form  707A,
rendered for the period  24  February  1991  through  23 February  1992,  be
declared void  and  removed  from  his  records,  and  be  replaced  with  a
Supplemental  Evaluation  Sheet,  AF  Form  77,  containing  the  statement,
“Report for this period not available for administrative reasons which  were
not the fault of the member.”

It is further recommended that his corrected record be considered for  early
retirement by a Special Board for  the  Fiscal  Year  1992  Selective  Early
Retirement Board (FY92  SERB)  using  the  modified  selection  process  the
Secretary of the Air Force prescribed  for  specifically  designated  boards
and which was slightly modified by the Federal Court of Claims  in  Berkley.
Specifically, that while all benchmark records remain, his record need  only
tie or beat one retained benchmark record to be considered retained.

If he is not selected for early retirement by the FY92 SERB, it  is  further
recommended  that  he  be  provided  the  opportunity  to  either  elect  to
voluntary retire effective 1 December 1994, or meet a Special Board for  the
Fiscal Year 1994 (FY 94) SERB, using  the  modified  selection  process  the
Secretary of the Air Force prescribed  for  specifically  designated  boards
and which was slightly modified by the Federal Court of Claims  in  Berkley.
Specifically, that while all benchmark records remain, his record need  only
tie or beat one retained benchmark record to be  considered  retained,  and,
should he be retained by either Special Board, the results be  forwarded  to
the AFBCMR at the earliest  practicable  date  so  that  all  necessary  and
appropriate actions may be completed.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2005-
00782 in Executive Session on 22 February 2006, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

            Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
            Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
            Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member

All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  2nd Addendum to Record of Proceedings, w/atchs
                 (BC-1990-00446).
     Exhibit D.  Record of Proceedings, w/atchs (BC-2004-02117).
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 7 Mar 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRT, dated 28 Mar 05.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPDE, dated 4 Apr 05.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPFF, dated 4 May 05, w/atch.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, AFLSMO/UUR, dated 10 May 05.
     Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 05.
     Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 May 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit L.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 8 Aug 05.
     Exhibit M.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Aug 05.
     Exhibit N.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Aug 05.
     Exhibit O.  Letter, SAF/GCM, dated 15 Nov 05.
     Exhibit P.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Nov 05.
     Exhibit Q.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Nov 05, w/atch.
     Exhibit R.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Dec 05, w/atchs.
     Exhibit S.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Dec 05, w/atchs.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair

MEMORANDUM FOR   THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
                 CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  XXXXXXX, Docket No:  BC-2005-00782

      I have carefully considered all the circumstances of this case and do
not agree with the panel’s recommendation that the applicant should be
considered by a Special Board for the Fiscal Year 1992 (FY 92) Selective
Early Retirement Board (SERB), and if necessary, the FY 94 SERB.

      The applicant was retroactively promoted to the grade of colonel
effective 1 February 1989, by a Special Selection Board (SSB) based on
previous corrections to his records.  In view of this, he requests that his
1 February 1993 retirement date be changed to 1 March 1998, contending that
he would have remained on active duty until his mandatory separation date
(MSD) of 1 March 1998, if he had been originally promoted to the grade of
colonel in 1989.  He further contends that his record cannot fairly compete
before a Special Board for either SERB based on the numerous errors to his
record.

      The panel believes that appropriate corrections to the applicant’s
records can be made to provide him fair consideration during the
supplemental process and for this reason, they recommend the four Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered subsequent to his 1989 promotion, be
removed from his records and replaced with AF Form 77s, Supplemental
Evaluation Sheets, that indicate the reports were not available for
administrative reasons through no fault of the applicant.  The panel
further recommends that his corrected record be considered by a Special
Board using a modified selection process in which his record need only tie
or beat one retained benchmark record from the original SERB to be
considered retained.

      Under most circumstances, I would believe that the decision regarding
whether or not the applicant would have been permitted to remain on active
duty until his MSD should be addressed by the proposed modified selection
process.  However, there are instances whereby the magnitude of the
injustice is such that it can only be rectified by Secretarial action.  I
believe this is such a case.  The applicant has established by the
preponderance of the evidence that there are a number of factors which he
cannot overcome in order to receive fair and equitable consideration for
retention (i.e., no performance reports rendered as a colonel, lack of an
opportunity to complete Professional Military Education (PME), and the
absence of grade commensurate assignments).  Further, the panel’s
recommended corrections to his record would create a four-year gap in his
record of performance.  Clearly, based on the above, he cannot fairly
compete for retention on extended active duty due to factors over which he
has no control.  While I am aware of the above circumstances, a special
board, even one employing the proposed modified selection process, is
limited to evaluating the record placed before it and would not be aware of
the continued injustices.  In view of the above findings, I believe the
only viable option at this point in time is to direct that his retirement
date be changed to 1 March 1993.  In arriving at my decision, I am keenly
aware that the courts have held that correction boards have an abiding
moral sanction to determine, insofar as possible, the true nature of an
alleged injustice and take appropriate steps to grant thorough and fitting
relief.

      In view of the above, and based on the totality of the evidence
presented, I believe the interest of justice can best be served by
resolving this issue in favor of the applicant.  Therefore, I direct that
his request to be retired on 1 March 1998 be approved.








                                                                        JOE
G. LINEBERGER

Director
                                                                        Air
Force Review Boards Agency
AFBCMR BC-2005-007823




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 XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that he was not retired on
1 February 1993, but on that date he continued on active duty and was
ordered permanent change of station to his home of selection until 28
February 1998, on which date he was relieved from active duty and retired
for length of service, effective 1 March 1998.






                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency
AFBCMR
1535 Command Dr, EE Wing, 3rd Flr
Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002


Dear XXXX

      Your application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military
Records, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-00782, has been finalized.

      The Board recommended that your application be granted, in part, as
set forth in the attached Record of Proceedings.  However, after a careful
review and consideration of all factors involved, the Director, Air Force
Review Boards Agency determined the military records should be corrected as
set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff,
United States Air Force.  The office responsible for making the
correction(s) will inform you when your records have been changed.

      After correction, the records will be reviewed to determine if you
are entitled to any monetary benefits as a result of the correction of
records.  This determination is made by the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service (DFAS-DE), Denver, Colorado, and involves the assembly and careful
checking of finance records.  It may also be necessary for the DFAS-DE to
communicate directly with you to obtain additional information to ensure
the proper settlement of your claim.   Because of the number and complexity
of claims workload, you should expect some delay.  We assure you, however,
that every effort will be made to conclude this matter at the earliest
practical date.

                                        Sincerely




                 PHILLIP E. HORTON
                 Chief Examiner
                 Air Force Board for Correction
                 of Military Records


Attachments:
1.  Cy of Directive, w/Cy of Proceedings
2.  SAF/MRB Letter

cc:  DFAS-DE