RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02795 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be reconsidered for continuation by the CY11A Lieutenant 
Colonel Continuation Board. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. His records did not reflect recent training, his impending Air 
Force Specialty Code (AFSC) change, and his Permanent Change of 
Station (PCS) to the 607 AOC, Osan Airbase, Republic of Korea. 
He was passed over by the IPZ CY10 Lt Col Promotion Board and was 
not allowed to actively pursure working for the Guard or Reserve 
because he had an Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC). Now he 
is precluded from continuing his service with the Guard or 
Reserves; he is ineligible per AFI 36-2005, Table 2.2, Item 25. 

 

2. He understood the instructions to the board recommended that 
additional consideration be given to majors within 5 years of 
retirement eligibility at the time of the board convening, which 
was in Mar 11. As a United States Air Force Academy graduate, he 
was excluded because his 15 year point did not arrive until May 
11. However, by the time he received the CY11A board’s decision, 
he was within 5 years of retirement eligibility. At his current 
date of separation he will have 15 years and 6 months on active 
duty. 

 

3. His records were incomplete at the time he met the CY11Aboard 
as he just completed the Air and Space Operations Center Initial 
Qualification Training and received “Honor Graduate” status upon 
graduation. His AFSC changed the month after the board convened. 
He received notification of his non-selection to be continued two 
months after he arrived to his new duty station in Korea. Also, 
his record did not reflect the fact that he had a 5-year 
commitment for accepting the ACIP bonus. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides documentation 
from his official personnel file. 

 

 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant was honorably discharged from the Regular Air Force 
in the grade of major (0-4) and was involuntarily discharged on 
30 Nov 11. 

 

The applicant met the CY11A Lt Col Central Selection Board above-
the-promotion zone (APZ) and was non-selected, which was his 
second non-selection. He met the CY11A Major Selective 
Continuation Board; however, he was not selected for 
continuation. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force which is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. Based on being over current end 
strength, the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) provided 
specific guidance to board members regarding selective 
continuation. Board members were advised that officers within 5 
years of retirement eligibility as of the board convening date of 
7 Mar 11 and those officers with critical skills should normally 
be considered. They were also advised that they could continue 
those not within 5 years or not in a critical skill if they 
determined that continuation was clearly in the best interests of 
the Air Force. In this case, the applicant was neither at the 15 
year point nor was he in a critical skill approved by the SECAF. 

 

DPSOO reviewed the applicant’s record and determined his Duty 
AFSC is 11M4Y, which is not on the approved critical AFSC 
listing; therefore, would not have affected the outcome of the 
continuation board. Additionally, his training, PCS, nor his 
ADSC would have changed the outcome of the continuation board. 
Furthermore, his situation is no more unique than the other 150 
plus officers who were not continued and must separate from the 
Air Force. 

 

DPSOO noted that they contacted the applicant and advised him 
that waivers are being processed by both Guard and Reserves to 
allow twice deferred officers to continue their service. 

 

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 


The applicant responds by stating his original contentions; 
however, he explains: 

 

a. That after being deferred once, he was unable to 
voluntarily separate from the Air Force due to his ADSC. He 
believes that the injustice of this action lies in the fact that 
he was under the ACIP program due to the critical need for pilots 
and the program did not allow him to separate while being only 
once deferred, which forced him to stay on active duty for his 
APZ promotion board where the rate of promotion was 1-2 percent. 

 

b. Precedence in this matter is based on the force drawdown 
of the 1990s and shows that officers with at least 15 years of 
honorable service should not be subject to involuntary 
separation. For example, in Oct 04, the SECAF approved a 
continuation policy of continuing all twice-deferred majors with 
more than 14 years of total active federal military service 
(TAFMS) to a 20 year retirement. The Temporary Early Retirement 
Authority (TERA) allowed for a 15 to 20 year retirement at a 
reduced rate. However, there was no additional voluntary 
separation opportunity for him after being once deferred due to 
his ACP commitment. 

 

 c. The President of the Military Officers Association of 
America (MOAA) wrote to the SECAF to urge reconsideration of the 
non-continuation actions that were taken during the CY11A Lt Col 
Board. Further, the Secretary of Defense said, “We owe it to 
them (the volunteer military force) to do this right and to do it 
(budget cutting) responsibly.” 

 

 d. He has served in two conflicts and is asking for 
additional consideration for an experienced veteran and his 
family who have sacrificed greatly to our nation. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission 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. 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. While we note the 
applicant’s contention that the force drawdown of the 1990s 
established a precedence that officers with at least 15 years of 
honorable service should not be subject to involuntary 
separation, it is beyond the purview of this Board to change 
legally constituted policy. The applicant has not shown that he 
has been treated any differently than other similarly situated 
officers in the instant timeframe. While his circumstance is 
regrettable, we cannot conclude he is the victim of error or 
injustice based on the evidence presented to us. 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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-02795 in Executive Session on 15 Mar 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 7 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Oct 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair