RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02143 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His records be corrected to reflect he was granted a four month 
time-in-grade (TIG) waiver and retired in the grade of colonel 
(0-6). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. In Jun 97, his losing rater failed to complete a Change of 
Reporting Official (CRO) Officer Performance Report (OPR) on him 
as required by AFI 36-2402. This omission unjustly limited his 
promotability, and ultimately contributed to the fact that he 
was 122 days short of meeting the required TIG to retire as a 
Colonel a year earlier. 

 

2. He served in a full colonel’s billet for six months prior to 
his date of rank to colonel, and as a frocked Colonel for two 
months prior to his official date of rank. This period of 
service should qualify him for a TIG waiver. 

 

3. The challenging nature of the jobs he held as a deployed 
Colonel and commander should result in his being credited with 
more service as a Colonel than someone who held an easier 
Colonel’s job. 

 

4. He submitted a 16 May 11 memo to AF/DPO for inclusion in his 
TIG waiver package which was not forwarded to the SAF Personnel 
Council (SAFPC) prior to their 24 May 11 disapproval of his 
waiver request. Due to his deployed status, and the limitation 
on the number of characters he could submit, he was not able to 
submit a more complete package with his initial submittal. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides an expanded 
statement and copies of documents relating to his TIG waiver 
request and disapproval, claim of a missing OPR; and retirement. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 


 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was promoted to the grade of colonel, with a date 
of rank of 1 Jan 09. 

 

In Apr 11, the applicant declined a permanent change of station 
(PCS) assignment, requiring him to retire in the grade of 
lieutenant colonel (0-5) “not later than the first day of the 
fourth month after notification” under the Seven Day Option 
rules. 

 

On 24 May 11, SAFPC disapproved his request to waive the four 
additional months TIG he required to retire in the grade of 
Colonel. 

 

On 31 Aug 11, he retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel, 
having served in the grade of colonel for two years and eight 
months as a full colonel. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility (OPR) which are attached at Exhibits C, 
D, E, and F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence 
of error or injustice. While the applicant claims a new 
supervisor reported to duty in mid-Feb 97 and supervised him for 
approximately 130 days prior to the applicant’s PCS departure on 
27 Jun 97 requiring an OPR to be accomplished, he did not 
provide any supporting documentation that shows the new 
supervisor had more than 120 days of supervision and that he 
should have written a CRO report prior to his own PCS departure. 
The information captured on the report in existence, which is 
the official record, is presumed, in the absence of other 
compelling evidence, to be correct. The application may also be 
dismissed under the equitable doctrine of Laches, which denies 
relief to one who has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in 
asserting a claim. He waited 14 years to file his appeal. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. The applicant contends that an 
OPR for the period 16 Jan 97 thru 26 Jun 97 should have been 
accomplished and were it not for its omission from is officer 
selection record (OSR), he would have been promoted BPZ. 
However, based on the close out date of the OPR, it could not 
have been a matter of record for the Board as the close out date 
was after the CY97C Line BPZ panel close out (24 June 97). 
Since the OPR, that was not accomplished, could not have been 
included in the selection record for the CY97C Major Board, his 


contention that his not being promoted BPZ affected his TIG to 
Colonel is without effect. In addition, had he been promoted 
BPZ, there is no guarantee that he would have been promoted to 
Lt Colonel and Colonel any earlier. Given the unlikelihood of 
success on the merits, we strongly recommend the board find that 
it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay, 
and deny the application as untimely. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

HQ AF/DPO recommends denial, indicating that disapproval of the 
applicant’s TIG waiver request was consistent with existing laws 
and Air Force guidance and the treatment of other officers in 
his situation. Disapproval of his waiver (by SAFPC) does not 
constitute an error or injustice and therefore should not be 
overturned. The applicant was selected for an assignment to 
Scott AFB, IL reporting in Jun 11. Because he elected to retire 
under the Seven Day Option, he was ineligible for the TIG waiver 
authorized in PSDM 10-18, Expanded FY10 and FY11 Force 
Management Program. Furthermore, TIG is determined by the 
amount of time served from the date of rank, not the intensity 
or quality of service. His service while frocked or in 
positions above his pay grade do not entitle him to additional 
“credit” towards time in grade per Title 10 §777. His 16 May 11 
memo arrived subsequent to his TIG waiver package was forwarded 
to SAFPC and was therefore not included in his request. 
Ultimately, the applicant’s decision to retire in lieu of 
assignment made him ineligible for voluntary force management 
programs and resulted in a retirement date that fell short of 
the necessary time in grade to retire as a Colonel. 
Disapproving his waiver request was both consistent and fair 
with the treatment provided other colonels who retired with less 
than 3 years time in grade during the same period. 

 

A complete copy of the AF/DPO evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

SAF/MRBP states that when SAFPC considered this case on 24 May 
11, the applicant’s 16 May 11 memorandum was not provided to 
them or considered by the Board. Although the Board did not 
have the opportunity to consider the applicant’s justification 
in his request for the TIG Waiver, the additional justification 
the applicant provided in his 16 May 11 memorandum would have 
had no bearing on the Board decision as he provided no 
exceptional circumstances or hardship which prevented him from 
accepting the assignment. Based on the documentation provided 
by the applicant in the AFBCMR case file, we find no evidence 
that the missing memorandum would have altered the SAFPC Board 
decision. 

 

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID’s evaluation is based on a misunderstanding. It 
appears they believe the Jan 97 OPR is being contested—-it is 
not. He is claiming that an OPR is missing for the period 16 
Jan - 26 Jun 97. He has no access to records or other evidence 
establishing his supervisors report date to Falcon AFB; if DPSID 
questions the accuracy of his assertion, he recommends retrieval 
of the portion of his supervisor’s record archive containing 
this information. DPO’s comments seek to obscure the fact that 
for no reasonable purpose, DPO refused to provide the 
supplementary justification he provided them for consideration. 
Those details, contained in his 16 May 11 memo, provided 
additional significant basis for his waiver request, and was 
received by DPO 2 duty days after they sent his package to 
SAFPC. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is at Exhibit G. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was untimely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant’s complete submission, including his 
response to the Air Force evaluations, in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, 
we do not find his assertions or the documentation presented 
sufficient to convince us that he is the victim of an error or 
injustice. Therefore, in the absence of 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 the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02143 in Executive Session on, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jun 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, APFC/DPSID, dated 22 Aug 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 8 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AF/DPO, dated 31 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBP, dated 13 Feb 12. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Dec 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair