RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-04981
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED: NO

	 

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His mandatory retirement date of 1 Feb 11 be changed back to 
his original retirement date of 1 Nov 11 with service credit for 
time served from 1 Feb 11 to 1 Nov 11.

2. As an alternative, his retirement date be changed to 1 May 11 
and he receive a new retirement multiplier for the correct 
calculation of retired pay based on the new retirement date.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a three page brief, the applicant makes the following key 
contentions: 

1. According to the instructions governing the Selective Early 
Retirement Board (SERB), his commander was required to give him 
his Retention Recommendation Form (RRF) no later than 30 Jul 10; 
however, the RRF was signed by the general officer on 18 Aug 10 
and emailed to him while he was on leave.  He received the RRF 
on 20 Aug 10, the Air Force’s cutoff date for accepting 
voluntary retirement applications with an effective date of 1 
May 11.  The fact that he was so close to completing a 30 year 
career made his decision all the more difficult.  

2. Because he received the RRF 3 weeks late, he was denied an 
opportunity to make an informed decision to apply for retirement 
in lieu of meeting the SERB.  He was denied the minimum required 
time of 21 days to weigh his options.  It was unreasonable to 
expect anyone to make such a big career decision on the same day 
of receiving notification (his commander’s retention 
recommendation) as the retirement application was required to be 
submitted.  He was forced to meet the board because the general 
officer did not comply with the published standards for the 
SERB, resulting in him being selected for early retirement.

3. Since being retired, he found out that the SERB board appears 
to have selected officers for early retirement based on length 
of service rather than the required qualitative records review.  
He does not have access to the SERB list, but believes this to 
be true.  He believes the board selected the oldest 30 percent 
for early retirement rather than conducting the head to head 
competition as directed in the instructions, which is in 
violation of the Secretary of the Air Force’s (SECAF) policy.  

4. After reviewing the initial results released from the 2010 
SERB, it was immediately clear to him that a predominant factor 
in selection was age/length of service.  Further analysis of 
publically released and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
information did not show any statistically significant 
preference for selection due to gender, race, career field, 
below-the-zone status, command, education level or any other 
factor between the various age/year groups.  However, age/length 
of service discrimination is clear.  Test results are 
categorized as significant with a p-value that, simply put, says 
the odds of this outcome happening without age/length of service 
discrimination are 1 out 165 Billion.  The SECAF could have 
chosen to direct that the board be conducted using age/length of 
service as the primary factor for discriminating between 
candidates for retention, but for obvious reasons, he did not.  

5. The SECAF Memorandum of Instructions to the SERB board 
clearly states that, “Give no weight, whatsoever, to an 
officer’s age”.  It should be clear that the age and length of 
service are inextricably linked.  Using age/length of service as 
the deciding factor was not only in conflict with the SECAF’s 
directions, it was contrary to all the officially stated press 
releases/briefings.  

6. One of his primary responsibilities while he was serving on 
active duty was to provide oversight on nuclear surety and 
nuclear weapons safety.  He was also one of the few officers 
with Strategic Air Command experience as well as a war plan 
advisor.  This was a part of the SECAF’s instructions to the 
SERB board, which stated to retain officers with “a keen 
understanding in joint matters … to include other departments 
and agencies of the United States and the military forces of 
other countries.”  The instructions also said to “give special 
consideration to nuclear experienced officers.”

In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a 
AF/DPO Memorandum, a copy of his RRF, email communications, a 
copy of SECAF’s Memorandum of Instruction to the SERB, a copy of 
SERB results by CYOS, a copy of Chi-squared test, a copy of 
Correlating Coefficient Results, a copy of the SERB Section 
Criteria, a copy of Public Affairs Guidance, a copy of his 
Defense Superior Service Medal (DSSM) Certificate and Citation, 
and a copy of his Legion of Merit (LOM) Certificate.

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

________________________________________________________________
_

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant retired from the Regular Air Force on 1 Feb 11 in 
the grade of colonel.  

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 C.

________________________________________________________________
_

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/DPO recommends denial.  The applicant did not receive his RRF 
30 days prior to the SERB board convening as required by the 
instructions.  He received the RRF on 20 Aug 10, which was 10 
days prior to the SERB.  He claims he was not afforded the 
opportunity to make an educated decision on whether to meet the 
SERB or voluntarily retire in lieu of meeting the board.  
However, he does not state whether he asked for an extension or 
to be given special consideration since he had not received his 
RRF with ample time to make an informed decision prior to the 
SERB convening.  Had he contacted their office, he would have 
likely been given an extension, as another officer requested 
retirement in lieu of SERB on 24 Aug 10 and was approved post 
the established deadline on 25 Aug 10.  By not taking any 
action, the applicant made the decision to meet the SERB despite 
the compressed timeline.  

The applicant contends that the CY10A SERB intentionally used 
age and length of service as a primary decision factor in 
selecting individuals for early retirement, and as a result he 
was unjustly retired on 1 Feb 11.  In his letter, he sites post 
board demographics that show 30/51 (58 percent) of those 
officers meeting the board with more than 28 years of service 
were involuntarily separated.  He also provides a Chi-Squared 
test results to compare the differences in the selection rate 
for the various groups and concluded that age/length of service 
were in correlation with selection for early retirement.

As the applicant points out, he had both joint and nuclear 
experience; however, he lacked key leadership experience and had 
never deployed.  Furthermore, in reviewing the post board 
demographics, officers who did not promote early and who had not 
been to Senior Development Education (SDE) in residence were 
selected for a retirement at a rate similar to those with 
28 years of service, 49 percent and 57 percent, respectively.  
Therefore, these factors coupled with other factors may have 
contributed to his selection for early retirement.  



The majority of officers eligible for the 2010 SERB had 26-28 
years of service, officers identified with less years of 
commissioned service were those promoted early and were also 
selected for retirement.  

Finally, the board members are required to sign a report that 
certifies that he or she acted in accordance with all percepts 
set forth by the SECAF to include fair and equitable 
consideration and did not consider an officer’s age as a 
deciding factor.  In addition, the demographic information such 
as age, sex, gender, race, etc., was not provided to the board 
members.

The SERB process was extremely competitive and although 
58 percent of the colonels with 28 years of service or more who 
met the board were selected for retirement, there is no clear 
evidence that the board deliberately targeted the applicant for 
retirement based solely on his age and not other factors.  

The complete DPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________
_

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 14 Dec 12 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, this office has received no response.

________________________________________________________________
_

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 an error or injustice.  We have 
thoroughly reviewed the available evidence pertaining to the 
applicant’s request to change his mandatory retirement date to 
allow him to attain a 30-year retirement.  The applicant asserts 
that the SERB used age/length of service as a factor when 
selecting individuals for retirement; contrary to the SECAF 
Memorandum of Instructions.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s 
view, we find insufficient evidence that the applicant was 
selected for early retirement as a result of his age/length of 
service.  Based on the evidence before us, it appears the 
applicant received fair and equitable consideration in 
accordance with the policies established by the Secretary of the 
Air Force.  As such, we agree with the opinion of AF/DPO and 
adopt its rationale as the basis for our determination and find 
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  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-2012-04981 in Executive Session on 1 Aug 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AF/DPO, dated 7 Dec 12.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 12.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair