RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05678 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her retirement date be changed from 1 Jan 11 to 1 Feb 11. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She was unfairly targeted by the Assistant Adjutant General for 
the Arizona Air National Guard (ATAG AZANG). Her chain of 
command recommended her for an extension of her Active Guard 
Reserve (AGR) active duty tour until 1 Apr 11. However, the 
ATAG disapproved her request and shortened her tour causing her 
to be 22 days shy of completing 34 years of service. 

 

She notes that the ATAG was investigated by the Secretary of the 
Air Force Inspector General (SAF/IG) for "abuse of 
power/authority" in several instances. The allegations were 
substantiated and the Adjutant General of Arizona (AZ TAG) and 
the Governor of Arizona relieved him of his command and banned 
him from the AZANG state headquarters. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

On 31 Dec 10, the applicant was relieved from active duty and 
transferred to the Retired Reserve and her name was placed on 
the USAF Retired List. She was credited with 29 years and 
25 days or active service for retirement and 33 years, 11 months 
and 9 days of service for basic pay. 

 

The applicant filed an IG complaint against the ATAG alleging 
that he had abused his authority by not retaining her beyond 
31 Dec 10. 

 

On 5 Jan 11, the SAF/IGS determined the evidence indicated the 
Arizona Adjutant General (AZ TAG), not the ATAG, had closely 
examined the applicant’s situation on more than one occasion, 
even having his Command Chief Master Sergeant provide him with 
additional information on her overall situation. He extended 


her orders to 31 Dec 10 in concert with her and the wing’s 
wishes. This was a reasonable extension given her personal 
circumstance of being retirement eligible; the Arizona State’s 
CMSgt AGR control grades being fully utilized (full manning 
levels), and the new commander having enough time to fully learn 
her job before having to hire a new superintendent. The date 
chosen was consistent with the wing’s stated desires and at the 
end of the calendar year when individuals that separate under 
retention programs usually depart. The decision not to grant 
the additional 31 days just for retirement pay purposes is 
consistent with past decisions. Finally, the TAG’s motive was 
to provide ample time for the unit to prepare for the change and 
give the applicant ample time to determine what she wanted to do 
next, of which retirement was one option. 

 

The above analysis does not provide any prima facie evidence of 
possible wrongdoing on the part of the ATAG. Although he was 
certainly involved in advising TAG on decisions, TAG was the 
responsible management official (RMO) in this situation. As the 
ATAG, he had the right to actively lead and manage his units, to 
include getting involved in such matters and advising his boss. 
Although his hands-on style in doing this may be a departure 
from the style of his predecessors, it did not fall into any 
category of wrongdoing on this issue. Hence, they did not 
recommend investigating this issue further. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1P concurred with the subject matter expert (SME) and 
recommend relief not be granted based on the ANG Instruction and 
lack of documentation to substantiate an injustice had occurred. 

A1PO states the applicant has included evidence supporting an 
abuse of authority was substantiated towards Brig Gen S.; 
however, there is no evidence provided to support the allegation 
that this same abuse of authority occurred towards the 
applicant. 

 

A1PO notes that NGB/A1PP recommends denial. Separation for non-
retained members is required to be completed prior to 31 Dec of 
the year in which the retention board is convened in accordance 
with ANGI 36-2606, Selective Retention of Air National Guard 
Officer and Enlisted Personnel. There is no evidence the 
applicant requested reconsideration of the decision to allow 
retention beyond 31 Dec 10. Furthermore, no evidence was 
provided to support an abuse of authority occurred towards the 
applicant. 

 

ANGI 36-2606, para 3.1 provides authority for the TAG to approve 
or disapprove any or all specific recommendations for selective 
retention. TAGs may direct separation between 1 Oct and 31 Dec 
of the calendar year of the board provided that the member is 
permitted at least 30 days in which to respond to the 


notification of non-retention. Per ANGI 36-2606, paragraph 3.2 
"In exceptional circumstances, TAG may retain a member no more 
than six months past the 31 Dec separation/discharge date for 
the purpose of recruiting and training a replacement, upcoming 
unit compliance inspection (UCI), operational readiness 
inspection (ORI), or other circumstances deemed necessary by 
TAG. TAG is the ultimate authority for any retention decision 
six months beyond 31 Dec. 

 

The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The basic premise of A1P’s advisory is flawed. A1P uses the 
selective retention guidelines as their basis, which is 
incorrect. The issue is one of an extension of her AGR orders 
and her enlistment. She was not in a selective retention cycle 
or on any selective retention roster. The action to extend her 
AGR tour was outside the scope of any selective retention 
program and was done out of vindictiveness and spite by the ATAG 
in direct opposition of her commanders. No other basis exists 
for this action and the ATAG was investigated and allegations 
were substantiated. 

 

In addition, she provides an email and personal statement 
suggesting that her group commander wanted her to be retained 
until 31 Jan 11. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at 
(Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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. The applicant 
alleges she has been the victim of reprisal and has not been 
afforded full protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act 
(10 USC 1034). Based on this, she is requesting her retirement 
date be changed to 1 Feb 11. We note the Inspector General 
investigated the alleged abuse of authority by the applicant’s 
State military officials; however, they recommended no further 
investigation on this matter. Contrary to the applicant’s 
assertions that she was unfairly targeted by the ATAG, the 
evidence reveals that it was actually the AZ TAG that denied her 
retention beyond 31 Dec 10; not the ATAG. SAF/IG found this 


determination was consistent with other members within the State 
that were similarly situated. Based on our own independent 
review, we did not find that TAG’s actions were arbitrary or 
capricious or that his actions were motivated by retaliation for 
the applicant making a protected communication. Therefore, 
without substantial evidence to substantiate the ATAG or TAG 
abused their power against the applicant, we agree with the 
opinion and recommendation of the National Guard Bureau office 
of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis 
for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain her 
burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In 
view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2012-05678 in Executive Session on 21 May 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Dec 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. SAF/IG Report of Investigation, WITHDRAWN. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 24 Jan 13, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 13. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Feb 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair