RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01951
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he retired in the grade of  Colonel  (O-
6).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served 23 years and was not willing or able  to  accept  a  command  tour
overseas.  As a result, he had to retire three months prior to  the  minimum
two years Time in Grade (TIG) needed to be eligible for retirement as an  O-
6.  He was a candidate on the  AF  2007  Group  Command  list  but  did  not
originally get selected for command.   Shortly  after  the  initial  command
select list was distributed, his supervisor was contacted  and  informed  of
his selection to assume command  of  a  group.   Unfortunately,  there  were
legal issues occurring at the gaining hiring authority’s base  that  delayed
his departure and immediate assumption of command.

During this waiting period, he received  an  email  from  the  AF  Colonel’s
Group indicating that he had  been  selected  for  a  command  at  a  remote
overseas location.  This occurred even though the Colonels’ Group was  aware
of his hiring status at another location.   He  was  not  prepared  for  the
surprising way that he was informed about taking command of  a  group  at  a
remote assignment.  He received no warning, no coordination, nothing  except
an email sent to his personnel representative to relay.  As a result of  the
last minute change and impact on  his  family,  he  reluctantly  decided  to
retire.  He requested an exception to policy to retire as an  O-6,  but  was
informed that he would not be eligible.

He  was  not  a  mediocre  leader  or  performer  as  noted  by  his  career
performance, evaluations and awards.  He performed for 11 months in  an  O-6
position as an O-5 without benefit of O-6 pay or being frocked prior to  his
permanent promotion.  He was unofficially informed that had he requested  to
retire during the initial AF drawdown he could have been retired as an  O-6;
however, retirement was not an issue for him  at  that  time.   He  believes
there were mitigating circumstances that could have been  considered  before
disregarding his request for an exception to policy.

In support of  the  application,  he  submits  his  personal  statement,  an
electronic mail message, his exception to policy request letter, two (2)  AF
IMT Form 707A, Field Grade Officer  Performance  Reports,  and  the  Defense
Superior Service Medal award.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was honorably retired on 31 Aug  08  after  serving  25  years,  4
months and 29 days on active duty.

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:

AF/DPO recommends denial.  DPO states that the applicant  was  not  eligible
to retire under the 2007 Force Shaping policy exemption because he  did  not
have two years time in grade (TIG) in order to retire through  the  program.
Only the Secretary of the Air Force  (SECAF)  is  authorized  to  waive  TIG
requirements (to retire in the current grade) from three years  TIG  to  two
years TIG; any reduction beyond two years would be in  direct  violation  of
the law.  The applicant was actually 15 months short of the TIG  requirement
to retire in the grade of  O-6  and  not  three  months  as  stated  on  his
application.

The complete DPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response dated 19 Aug 08, the applicant states he is not  asking  for
a technical viewpoint, but a decision based on  fairness  and  justice.   He
voluntarily submitted his  paperwork;  however,  he  did  so  based  on  his
options – accept his new assignment or retire.  He  reluctantly  elected  to
retire but annotated his displeasure at  the  bottom  of  the  Statement  of
Understanding.

He also reiterates  his  earlier  comments  regarding  his  assignment.   He
concludes that he never complained nor requested special  consideration  for
any assignment regardless of  whether  it  was  a  short-notice  deployment,
remote, or routine assignment.

His complete submission is at 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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

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 issues 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 30 Oct 08 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
      Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member
      Ms. Yvonne T. Jackson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2008-01951:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 01 Dec 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AF/DPO, dated 8 Jul 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Aug 08.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair