RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-05116
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His mandatory retirement date of 1 February 2011, established by 
the Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB), be changed to the 
original mandatory retirement date of 1 November 2011.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

During the August 2010 SERB, he was selected to retire earlier 
than his planned 30 year service mark of 1 November 2011.  It 
can be proven that the SERB used age/length of service as the 
deciding factor in selecting individuals for early retirement.  
This is in direct violation of the Secretary of the Air Forces 
(SECAF) Memorandum of Instructions (MOI) to the SERB.  

In his first assignment as an O-6 (colonel), his duties included 
being the AF Senior promotion board personnel analyst with 
supervision of the entire analysis branch at the Air Force 
Personnel Center (AFPC).  In this position, he supervised and 
reviewed the board results/briefings to SECAF.  Upon review of 
the initial results from the 2010 SERB, it was clear the 
predominant factor in selection was age/length of service.  
Further analysis of publically released information does not 
show any statistical 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. 

In the SECAF MOI to the board, it clearly states to “give no 
weight, whatsoever, to an officer’s age.”  It should be clear 
that age and length of service are linked.  If you perform a 
correlation analysis using the end of month September 2010 raw 
data from AFPC, you get a perfect coefficient of .8427.  This 
value shows a strong correlation and shows that any 
discrimination in regards to length of service also 
discriminates with regards to age.  Using age/length of service 
as a deciding factor in the SERB selection was not only in 
conflict with SECAF’s directions, it was contrary to the 
officially stated press releases/briefings.

The AF gave officer’s that were SERB eligible the opportunity to 
avoid the board and voluntarily retire.  He declined this option 
based on the AF’s announcement that the board would use a 
process similar to the promotion selection board process.  After 
consulting with supervisors and senior officers, he was advised 
that with his outstanding record he would almost certainly be 
retained.  Had he known the SERB would not use the normal 
promotion board process but instead use age/length of service as 
the primary consideration factor, he would not have met the 
SERB.  

His intent for submitting this request is not to reap a 
financial windfall, but rather try to regain some measure of 
dignity for the erroneous and embarrassing termination of a 
distinguished, lengthy career just short of the prestigious 30-
year mark. 

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal 
statement, SECAF memo, SERB results, supporting charts, 
selection criteria, selection results, public affairs guidance, 
officer performance reports and his retention recommendation 
form.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Air Force who retired on 
31 January 2011 after 29 years, 3 months and 23 days of active 
duty service.  

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

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/DPO recommends denial.  The applicant was commissioned into 
the Air Force on 8 October 1981 and entered undergraduate pilot 
training.  He flew the UH-1N and later became a Math Instructor 
at the Air Force Academy.  He was selected to attend the Air 
Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) to obtain his PhD in 
Mathematics.  He then returned to the Academy as the Division 
Chief of Calculus and Math Sciences.  He completed his Air Force 
career as the Associate Dean AFIT, with an established 
retirement date of 1 February 2011.

The SECAF MOI clearly stated that the board was to give no 
weight, whatsoever, to an officer’s age.  It also advised the 
board to consider the following when evaluating records:  Air 
Force personnel performing duties in Iraq, experiences, 
education and language skills that contribute to broader 
cultural awareness, acquisition or contracting experience, 
nuclear experience and joint duty experience.  The applicant 
lacked the depth and breadth of experience with 58% of his 
career being in academia as either a student or an instructor.  
Additionally he had not held any significant command leadership 
positions, having only one position as a deputy commander.  

By law, officers must have 4 years of time-in-grade as a colonel 
to be eligible for the SERB.   They also cannot have a mandatory 
retirement date in the fiscal year in which the selection board 
is convened or the following fiscal year.  The majority of the 
officers eligible for the 2010 SERB were officers who had not 
been promoted early and had 26 to 28 years of service.  Officers 
identified with less years of commissioned service were those 
officers promoted below their primary zone.  As reflected in the 
submitted charts, several officers who were promoted early were 
also selected for retirement.

The applicant never held an O-6 level command position, never 
deployed, had not been assigned to a Major Command or 
Headquarters staff and never held a command position while rated 
early in his career.  The cumulative total of those officers 
selected for retirement between 26 and 28 years of service was 
108, approximately 42% of the eligible.  While 58% is greater 
than the average of the three year groups, it is not 
significantly greater.

In accordance with SECAF’s MOI each member was required to sign 
a report that certified they acted in accordance with all 
precepts set forth by the SECAF to include fair and equitable 
consideration not giving weight to age.  Since the board is not 
furnished with an officer’s age, the applicant’s contention that 
age was used as a discriminating factor is without merit.

The SERB process was extremely competitive.  Although 58% of 
those eligible with 28 years of service were selected for 
retirement, there is no clear evidence the board targeted the 
applicant 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 December 2012 for review and comment within 
30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response 
(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 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-2012-05116 in Executive Session on 11 July 2013, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair
				Member
				Member








The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-05116 was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Oct 12, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.   Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.   Letter, AF/DPO, dated 7 Dec 12.
	Exhibit D.   Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 12.




							
			Panel Chair