RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03109
            INDEX CODE:  125.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

All  records  reflecting   retirement,   involuntary   separation   or
termination owing to Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) be  corrected  to
reflect continuous active duty within the National Guard Bureau  (NGB)
Statutory Tour Program.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The NGB violated 10 United States Code  (U.S.C.)  616  and  617(2)  by
abusing it’s authority in forcing her separation from active duty  and
did not allow her the opportunity to effect  an  appropriate,  proper,
and honorable separation.  Also, NGB  abused  it’s  authority  in  the
hiring/selection of  a  Military  Vacancy  Announcement  (MVA)  for  a
position that would have facilitated her being promoted to  a  general
officer  (GO)  position,  and  further  abused  their   authority   by
exercising pre-selection and changes to hiring/selection  process  for
MVA to favor and confirm an individual specifically to  her  disfavor.
Finally, the NGB involuntarily removed her from  active  duty  without
the benefit of due process of an  Administrative  Board  to  challenge
their actions.

In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  has  provided   several
attachments and enclosures.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was commissioned in the Tennessee Air National Guard (TNANG)
on 3 June 1976.  She  was  progressively  promoted  to  the  grade  of
colonel with a date of rank (DOR) of 30 July 1999.  She has  30  years
of satisfactory service for a Reserve retirement.  Her MSD was 1  June
2006;  however,  she  was  not   transferred   to   the   Nonobligated
Nonparticipating Ready Reserve Section (NNRPS) at ARPC until  16  July
2006.  She is currently eligible for a Reserve retirement at age 60.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/A1P0F concurs with the General Officer Management Office  (NGB/GO)
- the NGB’s Subject Matter Expert (SME) and recommends denial.  NGB/GO
reviewed the application in depth and found no justification or  legal
grounds to return the applicant to active status and retain her beyond
her statutory MSD.  In fact,  due  to  an  administrative  error,  she
continued to serve beyond  her  MSD  of  1  June  2006  and  was  only
separated after the error was discovered.  The discovery  led  to  her
separation on 15 July  2006.   NGB/GO  believes  she  should  be  paid
accordingly and given  proper  retirement  point  credit  for  serving
honorably and in good faith  for  the  time  served  beyond  her  MSD.
Alternatively, NGB/GO states she is subject to the laws and  standards
enforced on all officers of the  National  Guard  and  should  not  be
allowed to serve continuously beyond 13 July 2006.

The remaining pertinent facts are contained in the evaluation prepared
by the NGB SME, which is attached to A1P0F’s advisory at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant disagrees with NGB’s  opinions  and  has  provided  numerous
points of contention along with explanations for each.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  applicant's  submission,  we  can  find  no
documented instance of abuse of authority on the part of the  National
Guard Bureau (NGB).  The only deviation that makes itself  evident  as
an anomaly is that she was allowed  to  serve  past  her  MSD.   There
appears to be no  evidence  of  manipulation,  or  any  hard  evidence
showing she was purposely treated unfairly at any stage  of  her  pre-
retirement  processing.   She   was   clearly   the   victim   of   an
administrative oversight that, had it  not  taken  place,  would  have
required her to retire not later than her  MSD  of  1 June  2006.   We
found her allegation NGB abused its authority by pre-selecting another
and not hiring her into a position that  would  have  facilitated  her
promotion to be unsubstantiated.  Her contention she was involuntarily
separated from  the  ANG  is  not  substantiated;  in  fact,  she  was
transferred to the Reserve Retired  List  in  accordance  with  10 USC
14507(b) because she had served for 30 years and,  as  mentioned,  had
actually served beyond her MSD.   We  acknowledge  her  receipt  of  a
Certificate of Eligibility (COE); however, since she did not occupy  a
GO position (and therefore was not on a GO promotion  list),  she  was
not entitled to an  MSD  extension  pending  Federal  Recognition  and
Senate  confirmation.   Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and
recommendations of the NGB’s Chief, General Officer Management  Office
(GOMO) and adopt their rationale as the basis for  our  decision  that
the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of having  suffered  an
error or  injustice.   Consequently,  in  the  absence  of  persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, we noted GOMO’s recommendation  she  be
credited with active duty for the service she provided beyond her MSD.
 We agree with their proposal and therefore recommend that the records
be corrected as indicated below.

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  issue(s)   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. She was not released from active duty on  31  May  2006
and retired for length of service on 1 June 2006, but was continued on
active duty.

            b. On 1 June 2006, she requested a waiver of her Mandatory
Separation Date and her request was approved  by  competent  authority
pursuant to Title  10,  United  States  Code,  Section  14701  thereby
establishing a new Mandatory Separation Date of 1 August 2006.

            c. She was released from active duty on 31 July  2006  and
retired for length of service effective 1 August 2006.

______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2006-03109 in Executive Session on 14 June 2007, under the  provisions
of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
      Mr. Michael F. McGhee, Member
      Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1POF, dated 22 Jan 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jan 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Feb 07, w/atchs.




                                   JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                   Panel Chair

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC


[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary



AFBCMR BC-2006-03109




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 APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

            a. She was not released from active duty on  31  May  2006
and retired for length of service on 1 June 2006, but was continued on
active duty.

            b. On 1 June 2006, she requested a waiver of her Mandatory
Separation Date and her request was approved  by  competent  authority
pursuant to Title 10,  United  States  Code,  Section  14701,  thereby
establishing a new Mandatory Separation Date of 1 August 2006.

            c. She was released from active duty on 31 July  2006  and
retired for length of service effective 1 August 2006.





     JOE G. LINEBERGER

     Director

     Air Force Review Boards Agency