RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-04205 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be appointed to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

After separating from the Air Force Medical Service in Jul 2010, 
he agreed to return to active duty only after being promised by 
the Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS) that he would re-enter 
at the grade of Lt Col. However, the Air Force has since 
refused to appoint him as a Lt Col offering only a confusing and 
often contradictory rationale. After repeated, unsuccessful 
attempts to rectify this broken promise, he is forced to ask the 
Board to intervene on his behalf. 

 

It is important to point out that the magnitude of errors 
committed by the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) and AFRS have 
had real and drastic consequences for him, his family, and his 
unit. 

 

He was not afforded the fair opportunity to make a decision with 
full disclosure and transparency due to either falsehoods or 
omissions under which he was recruited. Some specific examples 
include, but are not limited to: 

 

a. Leaving a lucrative civilian medical practice, including 
declining a significant annual pay increase, based on the 
assurance that he would receive the salary and benefits of a Lt 
Col. 

 

b. Declining a clinical position close to his family in order 
to pursue a Lt Col rank-appropriate position as Chief of Medical 
Staff. 

 

c. Being unable to assume the role of deputy group commander 
desired by his commander due to the rank inversion this has 
created within the organization. 

 

He is disappointed knowing that he has satisfied his terms of 
the agreement, yet the Air Force has not done the same. He had 
no reason to doubt his nomination to Lt Col was accurate, and 
made significant life decisions based on that information. As a 


result, he earnestly and respectfully requests that the Air 
Force carry through on his appointment to Lt Col. 

 

In support of his request the applicant provides copies of 
memorandums for the Board, a Reaccession Timeline, Presidential 
Nomination and Congressional Confirmation, a statement from 
AFRS, Commissioning Statement of Understanding, and electronic 
communiqués. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of major. 

 

On 2 Aug 2011, the 112th Congress of the United States confirmed 
his appointment to Lt Col. 

 

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: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPAM recommends denial. DPAM states the applicant only 
earned enough credit to be a major. In Dec 2010, the Air Force 
Recruiting Service (AFRS) nominated him for appointment as a 
major in anticipation of accessing in Jun 2011. In Mar 2011, 
AFPC determined he earned enough credit to appoint as a Lt Col, 
and AFRS nominated him for appointment as a Lt Col. In Jul 
2011, his Lt Col appointment was pending confirmation, and AFRS 
commissioned him as a major. He signed a statement he would 
access as a major and transfer to the grade of Lt Col upon 
confirmation. In Jul 2011, extended active duty (EAD) orders 
were published accessing him to active duty as a major based on 
his appointment confirmation. 

 

In Aug 2011, his appointment to Lt Col was confirmed. At this 
time, AFPC identified an error that occurred in Mar 2011, when 
his credit was computed. He was given three years credit for 
his residency training that overlapped with the military service 
time he already received credit for. This error awarded him a 
total of 17 years, 1 month and 28 days of credit instead of the 
14 years, 18 days credit authorized. He was informed the senate 
confirmation as a Lt Col was without effect since he needed a 
total of 16 years credit to be accessed as a Lt Col according to 
AFI 36-2005, Appointment in Commissioned Grades and Designation 


and Assignment in Professional Categories - Reserve of the Air 
Force and United States Air Force. 

 

In Aug 2011, he told DPAM he was misinformed by his recruiter 
that he could not reaccess back to active duty earlier than one 
year from his date of separation. DPAM informed him according 
to AFI 36-2604, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective 
Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, he was authorized 
to return to active duty with the same grade (major) and DOR 
held when he separated from active duty in Jul 2010, as long as 
he returned within one year of that date. DPAM recommended he 
contact his recruiter for a statement that he was miscounseled 
on the policy and then submit a request to the Air Force Board 
for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). According to the 
recruiter’s memorandum he agreed he misinformed him on the 
policy. 

 

If his recruiter would have applied AFI 36-2604, paragraph 7.7. 
and ensured he reaccessed back to active duty prior to 20 Jul 
2011, he would have been accessed with the same grade and DOR he 
held when he previously separated from active duty. Since he 
did not enter EAD until 31 Jul 2011, his record had to be 
computed to determine his appointment grade 

 

The complete DPAM evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 9 Dec 2011, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. As of 
this date, no response has been received by this office (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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant 
partial relief. In this respect, we note the applicant has 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that he signed a 
statement that he would access as a major and transfer to the 
grade of Lt Col upon confirmation. Subsequently the appointment 
to the grade of Lt Col was confirmed; however administrative 
errors discovered after he entered his contract caused the 
senate confirmation to be without effect. While the applicant 
only earned enough credit to be accessed as a major, it is 


obvious that he was misled into believing he would transfer to 
the grade of Lt Col upon confirmation. However, there is no 
provision in law to allow us to appoint him in the grade of Lt 
Col. Nonetheless, it appears the applicant relied on the 
information provided to him to his detriment and impacted his 
ability to make an informed decision in the best interest of he 
and his family. In view of the above and as an exception to 
policy, we believe waiving the 6-month EAD requirement and 
recommending he be considered for promotion by SSB to the grade 
of Lt Col is the appropriate remedy and constitutes full and 
fitting relief. In arriving at our decision, we are keenly 
aware that the courts have held that corrections boards have an 
abiding sanction to determine, insofar as possible, the true 
nature and fitting relief. Therefore, in the interest of 
justice, we recommend 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 as an 
exception to policy, the 6-month Extended Active Duty (EAD) 
requirement is waived and that he meet a Special Selection Board 
(SSB) for the CY11A Lieutenant Colonel Medical Corps (MC) 
Central Selection Board as an in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) 
eligible. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered this application 
in Executive Session on 22 May 2012, 15 Oct 2012, and 28 Nov 
2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The 
following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2011-
04205: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Oct 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAM, dated 30 Nov 2011, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Dec 2011. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair