RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05117

			COUNSEL:  NONE

			HEARING DESIRED:  NO 



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His mandatory separation date (MSD) of 1 Sep 13 be extended to 31 Dec 14, and he be reinstated as the Air Force Reserve Command Deputy Surgeon General AFRC/SG2; or in the alternative, he be awarded financial/points or constructive service credit for the same period of time. 



APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The denial of his MSD extension request was unjust because it was based upon inaccurate/erroneous information and disparate treatment.  Three years was the advertised tour length in the original AFRC/SG2 job announcement for which he was selected.  He applied for this MSD extension in order to complete the three-year AGR AFRC/SG2 tour length.  The AFRC/CC recommended denial.  However, based upon an email inadvertently forwarded to the applicant he believes the AFRC/CC was given incomplete information about the career field manning levels for the Medical Services Corp (MSC).  The AFRC/CV told him the reason the AFRC/CC recommended denial of the waiver request was the applicant was blocking career progression for other MSC 0-6s, but this was clearly not the case.  Further, as the MSC Career Field Manager (CFM), he reviewed all MSC MSD extension packages, and his MSD package was the only one he saw disapproved out of six in FY13.  His orders began on 31 Dec 11 and ended on 30 Sep 13, and multiple people indicated that an MSD extension request would be successful.  

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served as a Health Services Administrator (Air Force Specialty Code 41A) in the MSC at HQ AFRC, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia during the matter under review.  

Under Special Order AA-099, dated 7 Dec 11, the applicant was ordered to extended active duty as the Deputy Command Surgeon (AFRC/SG2) for the period 31 Dec 11 through 29 Sep 13, a period of 19 months, unless sooner relieved.    

According to the documentation provided by the applicant:

On 28 Nov 12, the applicant requested that his mandatory separation date (MSD) be extended for 15 months (31 Dec 14), in accordance with Title 10, United States Code (USC) §14703.  

On 9 Jan 13, AFRC/CC recommended that the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) deny the applicant’s request, indicating the applicant’s specialty was not a health care specialty with critical shortages in accordance with OASD guidance.

On 28 Feb 13, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) denied the applicant’s request.  

On 1 Oct 13, the applicant retired from the Reserve with over 39 years of satisfactory service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C and D.    



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/SG recommends approval of the applicant’s request for financial/points compensation.  In accordance with Title 10 USC §14509, he was scheduled to separate from active duty on the last day of the month in which he became 62 years of age (30 Sep 13).  As an officer with a medical specialty, the applicant could have been extended to age 68.  As of 30 Sep 13, AFRC-wide Health Services Administrator (AFSC 41A3/4) manning level was 80 percent.  The AFRC 0-6 41A staffing levels presented to AFRC/CC by AFRC/A1 during the applicant’s MSD extension request process was 90 percent; however, this was based on a projection that all colonel-select 41As would pin on 0-6 immediately and that none of the 0-6 41As at the time would leave as can be routinely expected by retirements, MSD expirations, and separations.  As a result, the 41A manning levels presented were unrealistically high.  In addition, there was the sense at the time that allowing the applicant to remain in the AFRC/SG2 position would block other 41As from career progression into that position.  That sense was not borne out in reality when the applicant’s replacement came from the Air Reserve Technician (ART) position in AFRC/A3, not much more than lateral career progression for that individual.  In addition, three other colonel 41A MSD extension requests submitted during the same timeframe were endorsed by AFRC/CC and ultimately approved by SAF/PC.  This raises the question if the applicant’s MSD extension request received the same consideration as other requests.  

The applicant accepted the three-year AGR tour in good faith after being advised that an MSD extension waiver request would be successful.  The applicant was already qualified for retirement and was eligible for retired pay when he agreed to accept the position of Deputy Command Surgeon.  Had he been extended to 31 Dec 14, he would have completed his AGR tour on the date advertised for the position when he accepted.

A complete copy of the AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C.

SAF/MRBP recommends denial of the applicant’s request for an MSD extension and/or reinstatement, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Furthermore, MRBP does not concur with the AFRC/SG’s recommendation to approve the applicant’s request for financial/points compensation for the period in question.  The applicant’s Special Order AA-0099, dated 7 Dec 11, indicated a date of separation (DOS) of 29 Sep 13, unless sooner relieved.  On 28 Feb 13, SAFPC unanimously determined it was not in the best interest of the Air Force to retain him.  The Board previously approved service credit and points to extend the applicant through his 29 Sep 13 mandatory separation date (MSD) based on justification that included continuity of programs and leadership transition during the AFRC/SG transition, and per AF/RE “until the inbound Command Surgeon was assigned.”  That 28 Feb 12 SAFPC decision was based on a thorough review of all available information to include the applicant’s request and the recommendation from the applicant’s chain-of-command.  The applicant states “multiple persons indicated that an MSD waiver would be successful;” however, SAFPC is the final approval/disapproval authority for MSD waiver requests, and denied his request.  MSD waivers should not be seen as having been pre-approved by individuals who do not have the authority for such an action.  There is no injustice or inequity in SAFPC’s decision.   

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation is at Exhibit D.



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He reiterates that he believes SAFPC disapproved his MSD waiver request because that was the AFRC/CC’s recommendation, but the AFRC/CC’s recommendation was based on inaccurate information and exacerbated by the lack of clearly stated policy (Exhibit F).



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 took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response to the advisory opinion, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of SAF/MRBP and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  The Board notes AFRC/SG’s recommendation for approval; however, absent any evidence that AFRC/CC abused his discretionary authority, we are not inclined to substitute our judgment for that of his, when the applicant’s assertion the AFRC/CC recommendation was informed by faulty information is only supported by argument and conjecture.  Neither this Board, nor the applicant, can know all of the factors and competing concerns weighed by the AFRC/CC when he decided to recommend the applicant’s MSD extension be denied, regardless of the applicant’s assessment of the recommendation to deny his request for retention.  In our view, AFRC/CC was well within his authority to make said recommendation and the applicant has presented no evidence that would lead us to believe his recommendation, or the subsequent decision of SAFPC, was the result of an error or caused the applicant to be the victim of an injustice.  As for the applicant’s argument that he was led to believe his request to extend his MSD would be approved, other than his own uncorroborated assertions, he has provided no evidence to indicate that responsible officials made any promises that his retention beyond his MSD was assured.  While the applicant argues the fact that the advertised tour length of the position he applied for was three years, we do not find this argument, in and of itself, sufficient to conclude his selection for such an advertisement represented a commitment on behalf of the Air Force to retain him beyond his MSD, particularly when his extended active duty (EAD) orders were published for a period of only 19 months and expired the day prior to his MSD.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.



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-2013-05117 in Executive Session on 2 Dec 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Nov 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFRC/SG, dated 4 Apr 14.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, dated 21 Oct 14.
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Oct 14.