RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01313 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Air National Guard (ANG) retirement effective date of 
30 September 2009 be withdrawn. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He received incorrect information from the Air Force Personnel 
Center (AFPC) in regard to his assignment to Extended Active Duty 
(EAD) under the Retired Rated Officer Recall Program (RRORP) 
versus the Limited Period Recall Program (LPRP). There is a key 
difference between LPRP and RRORP in regards to promotion 
opportunities. It has always been his desire to serve in the 
military until the maximum time allowable. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, electronic communications, messages on the LPRP and 
RRORP programs, and commander support for his retirement reversal 
request. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on EAD under the RRORP in the 
grade of lieutenant colonel with a date of rank of 1 October 2004 
and an effective date of 1 December 2009. 

 

The remaining relevant facts are contained in the evaluation 
provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at 
Exhibit B. 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

ARPC/DPP recommends denial. DPP states the applicant did not 
request to withdraw his retirement application prior to the 
effective date as required. A review of his record indicates he 
is eligible for Reserve retired pay under the provisions of Title 
10, United States Code (USC), Section 12731, effective on 


24September 2023, his 60thbirthday. He submitted a Reserve 
retirement application on 9 July 2009requesting a retirement 
effective 30 September 2009. The application was approved and theretirement processing completed. On 21 July 2009, the retirement 
order was sent to the applicant. 

According to their case management system, the applicant called 
the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) on 9 October 2009, 
requesting information on how to withdraw his Reserve retirement 
application. Since the retirement date had already passed, he wasadvised that only the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) could 
approve his withdrawal request. The ARPC retirement technician 
recommended he file an application to the Air Force Board for 
Correction of Military Records requesting his retirement be 
cancelled or withdrawn. 

The applicant was recalled to active duty under the RRORP on 
1December 2009. His current status is as a Reservist on EAD. 

The complete ARPC/DPPevaluation, with attachment,is at Exhibit 

B.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

While the ARPC/DPP advisory opinion is mostly accurate in a 
technical sense, it does not address the basic premise of his 
complaint that he had specifically asked questions of AFPC 
regarding stopping his retirement processing and received 
incorrect information that he did not discover to be incorrect 
until it was too late. He did not request withdrawal of his 
retirement application prior to the retirement effective date 
because he based his decision on incorrect information provided byAFPC. If he had known the differences between the LPRP and RRORP,
he would not have hesitated to stop retirement processing. 
Moreover, given the timing, he would have had only a maximum of 
one working day to get that done. He should not be penalized by 
acting on incomplete or incorrect information from an official 
source, or for an unusually short amount of time between his 
scheduled retirement date and the date he received his assignment.
Overturning his retirement will permit him to remain in the Air 
Force Reserve beyond his recall EAD tour, and afford him the 
opportunity to compete for promotion. 

The applicant’s complete rebuttal 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.
2


 

3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review 
of the evidence of record, the Board majority notes the applicant 
attempted to be recalled to Extended Active Duty (EAD) under the 
LPRP prior to his retirement effective date. Even though he was 
offered an EAD assignment prior to his retirement, miscounseling, 
and to secure his assignment caused his recall to EAD to begin 
after his retirement effective date and under the RRORP. The fact 
he was recalled to EAD under the RRORP rather than the LPRP 
resulted in him missing an opportunity to be considered by 2010 
Colonels Promotion Board. Given the strong support from the 
applicant’s chain of command and the well-documented 
correspondence in support of his application, a majority of the 
Board believes any doubt in this case should be resolved in the 
applicant’s favor. Therefore, the Board majority recommends his 
records be corrected as indicated below. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

 

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

 

a. He was not released from the Air National Guard on 
29 September 2009. 

 

b. He submitted a request to withdraw his retirement on 
29 September 2009 and the request was approved by competent 
authority. 

 

c. He was recalled to active duty under the Limited Period 
Recall Program effective 1 December 2009. 

 

d. If he has missed promotion opportunity, his records be 
considered by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2010 
United States Air Force Reserve Line and Non-Line Colonels 
Promotion Selection Board. 

 

_______________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2010-01313 in Executive Session on 2 December 2010, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

  Panel Chair 

  Member 

  Member 

 
 
By a majority vote, the Board recommended to grant the 
application. XXX voted to deny the applicant’s 
request; however, elected not to submit a minority report. The 
following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-
01313 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPP, dated 25 May 10, w/atch. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jun 10. 

 
 
 

 Panel Chair