AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
HEARING DESIRED: NO
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01118
IN THE MATTER OF:
COUNSEL: NONE
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Narrative Reason for Separation in Block 28 of his DD Form
214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be
updated to reflect he was considered for separation by a
Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) so he qualifies for the
Housing Assistance Program (HAP).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The HAP will consider program eligibility if there was a SERB in
place during a member’s final (retirement) PCS move, however,
the HAP requires the SERB be mentioned in Block 28 of the
DD Form 214 in order to be considered. In early 2008, there was
a SERB in place. Lieutenant Colonels who were twice passed over
for promotion to the grade of Colonel with over four years time-
in-grade (TIG) could either volunteer to retire or have their
records reviewed by a SERB. At that time he had been twice
passed over to colonel and had five and a half years TIG, and
his records were under review.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his
DD Form 214.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered active duty on 21 Mar 1999.
There was no SERB held in FY08 due to the relatively low number
of separations needed to meet Air Force Force-Shaping Goals.
On 30 Sep 08, the applicant voluntarily retired in the rank of
lieutenant colonel, was credited with 21 years, 11 months, and
6 days of active service for retirement, and was issued a DD Form
214 with a Narrative Reason for Separation in Block 28 of “Vol
Retirement—Sufficient Service for Retirement.”
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. The applicant contends HAP eligibility
will be considered if a SERB was in place during final
retirement, and his records were under review (by a SERB) as he
was twice passed over for promotion to the grade of colonel.
However, on 5 Nov 07, the member submitted a request for
voluntary retirement, thus clearly intending to voluntarily
retire. The only authorized Narrative Reason for Separation for
the applicant’s retirement is “Vol Retirement: Sufficient
Service for Retirement.”
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation, with attachment, is
at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 30 May 12 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 not timely 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 in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
(OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no basis upon which to recommend favorable action on this
application.
2
________________________________________________________________
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-2012-01118 in Executive Session on 18 Sep 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Mar 12, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 11 May 12, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 12.
Panel Chair
Panel Chair
Member
Member
3
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02989
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Block 18, on his DD Form 214 indicates he is Subject to recall to active duty by the Secretary of the Air Force. However, since he was selected for early retirement under 10 USC §638, this statement does not fully reflect 10 USC §688 nor AFI 36- 3207, Separating Commissioned Officers, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.16 which states, Officers retired by selective early retirement board (SERB) under 10 USC §638 are not recalled to active duty unless by Congress or the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03536
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03536 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Program Designator code (SPD) on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, which currently reflects RBC (Voluntary Retirement: Maximum Service or Time in Grade) be corrected to SCC (Mandatory Retirement: Reduction in Force). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-2006-00462
On 14 Jan 08, his records were considered by the S0593A SSB for the 1993 SERB, which included the corrections directed by the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) and he was selected to be retained. By application, dated 2 Jun 08, he requests reconsideration of his appeal, requesting that his active duty retirement date be changed from 1 Jul 93 to 1 Sep 99 and that he be provided active duty pay and benefits from his retirement date of 1 Jul 93 to 1 Sep 99. A...
The only evidence applicant submits to support his request is a 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article reporting an out-of-court settlement in Baker v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. In regard to the merits of the applicant’s requests, AF/JAG states that first, they recommend the application be denied as untimely. For the public policy reasons discussed above, they believe the Board should not permit an out-of-court settlement agreement to be used as evidence the applicant was not fairly...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-00021
The only evidence applicant submits to support his request is a 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article reporting an out-of-court settlement in Baker v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. The HQ USAF/JAG also states “it would be inappropriate for the Board to draw any inferences from the Baker settlement.” If strong legal grounds supported the Air Force position, he does not believe the Air Force would have corrected the 83 records in question and made the monetary settlement that it did. With...
The only evidence applicant submits to support his request is a 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article reporting an out-of-court settlement in Baker v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. The HQ USAF/JAG also states “it would be inappropriate for the Board to draw any inferences from the Baker settlement.” If strong legal grounds supported the Air Force position, he does not believe the Air Force would have corrected the 83 records in question and made the monetary settlement that it did. With...
At the time the FY92 SERB was first announced to the field (in early September 1991) the law did not permit exclusion of eligibility of officers with approved retirements from consideration by SERBs; therefore, at that time, even though applicant had an approved retirement, he met the eligibility requirements to be considered by SERB for early retirement. Additionally, applicant was not considered or selected for retirement by the FY92 SERB which convened in January 1992 but,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00782
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Had he been selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the original selection board, he would not have been eligible for the Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB), and would not have been forced to retired on 1 February 1993. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit K. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
The principle evidence applicant submits to support his request is a 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article reporting an out-of-court settlement in Baker v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. For the public policy reasons discussed above, they believe the Board should not permit an out-of-court settlement agreement to be used as evidence the applicant was not fairly considered by the FY94B SERB. The fact is, applicant’s selection by the FY94B SERB did not constitute an error or injustice...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00274
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00274 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be retired in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col, O-5). The TIG waiver program allowed certain Lt Cols to request retirement with no less than 2 years TIG and be retired in the grade of Lt Col; however, under the FY12 program parameters, the retirement must have been effective no later than 1 Sep 12. He...