RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05134
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) be extended to 1 Jun 17.

3.  He be allowed to complete 26 years of participating military 
duty.

4.  He be given an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) 
billet for which he was recruited hired and uniquely qualified 
to perform.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was retired because of an administrative error which was 
overturned by a previous case, AFBCMR (BC-2010-01313).  Because 
of the lengthy process to correct the errors; he missed 
promotion consideration by the Calendar Year 2009 (CY09), CY10 
and CY11 Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSBs).  The error 
that caused him to miss these promotion opportunities is without 
dispute.  He would have met the latter two boards while on 
Extended Active Duty (EAD) when he had his best chances at 
getting promoted.

He was inadvertently retired before returning to EAD under the 
rated recall program.  Consequently, he entered EAD as a retired 
officer and was not allowed to compete for promotion.

In AFBCMR BC-2010-01313, the Board corrected the applicant’s 
record to remove him from retired status; changed his recall to 
EAD under a different program since he was no longer retired, 
and directed that he be considered by a SSB for the CY10 CSB.  
However, because of the time it took to correct his records, the 
system did not reflect him as being eligible for promotion until 
Jan 12, after his EAD tour had ended.  By this time he had 
missed the CY09, CY10, and the CY11 Colonel CSBs.

He met the CY12 CSB as a non-participant because he had been 
released from EAD.  The promotion quotas for the 
Nonparticipation Promotion Boards are one (1) and the candidate 
selected is normally in the Above the Promotion Zone (APZ) 
category.  

He was selected for a participating position as a Reserve 
Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA); however, because of his 
Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) of 1 Jun 13, his assignment was 
cancelled.  Had he been promoted that would have precluded the 
need for an MSD extension.  

The Special Selection Board process is not adequate.  By 
extending his MSD, he will again be able to compete as a 
participating Reserve member.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides copies of 
AFBCMR Case BC-2010-01313, EAD orders with amendment, 
nonparticipant promotion statistics, email communiqués, MSD 
extension and various other documents associated with his 
requests.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 May 85, the applicant was commissioned as a Reserve of the 
Air Force.  On 18 Aug 85, the applicant entered EAD.  On 1 Oct 
04, the applicant was promoted to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel.  

The applicant’s MSD was established as 1 Jun 13, based on 
28 years of commissioned service.  

On 1 Oct 09, the applicant was transferred to the Retired 
Reserve awaiting pay at age 60.

On 1 Dec 09, the applicant was recalled to EAD under the Retired 
Rated Officer Recall Program (RRORP), for a period of two years, 
In Accordance With (IAW) the provisions of Title 10, United 
States Code (USC), § 688a.  

On 2 Dec 10, the Board (AFBCMR BC-2010-01313) recommended that 
the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that he was not 
released from the Air National Guard (ANG), and that competent 
authority approved his request to withdraw his retirement.  His 
records were also corrected to show that he was recalled to 
active duty under the Limited Period Recall Program (LPRP) 
effective 1 Dec 09, and his records be considered by a SSB CY10 
United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Line and Non-Line 
Colonels Promotion Selection Board.  For a more detail 
accounting of the facts surrounding the applicant’s previous 
request and the rationale of the Board's earlier decision, see 
the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit B.

On 8 Mar 11, the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) notified 
the applicant that his records had been corrected removing his 
retirement, effective 30 Sep 09.  In addition, his record was 
corrected to reflect that, on 1 Dec 09, he was recalled to EAD 
under the LPRP, in accordance with Title 10, USC, §12301(d).

On 1 Jun 13, the applicant was transferred to the Retired 
Reserve awaiting pay at age 60.

________________________________________________________________

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTT recommends denial.   

The applicant was commissioned 12 May 85.  In accordance with 
Title 10, USC § 14507(a), the officer must be removed on the 
first day of the month after the month in which the officer 
completes 28 years of commissioned service.  The applicant's MSD 
was established as l Jun 13.  He requested an exception to 
policy waiver but it was not approved.

He was transferred to the Retired Reserve on l Jun 13, with 
28 years of commissioned service and 25 years of satisfactory 
service.

The Board has already ruled in his favor by revoking his 
retirement and changing his recall from the RRORP to the LPRP. 
The advantage of the LPRP is that he remains promotion eligible.

Per AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective 
Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, Section 2.7.3, 
all ANG/USAFR officers serving on a Limited Recall to Extended 
Active Duty (LEAD) tour under Title 10 USC § 12301(d) will meet 
USAFR promotion boards when In the Promotion Zone (IPZ) or APZ 
eligible.  LEAD officers fill active duty positions (not Reserve 
positions) and are not part of the Selected Reserve.  However, 
the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) has directed that these 
officers will compete for Reserve I/APZ promotion with officers 
in the Selected Reserve.  This achieved his goal of allowing him 
to meet promotion boards.

The applicant's promotion opportunities can be made up through 
SSBs.  In this case, the applicant requests "to meet actual 
competitive promotion boards with my peers".  ARPC's Promotion 
Board Directorate stands by their original decision in Jan 12, 
that he is entitled to two SSBs the CY0610A, and CY0611A.  He 
was first notified in Jan 12, not Jul 12 as stated, that in 
order to have the best opportunity for promotion, a Promotion 
Recommendation Form (PRF) from his senior rater during those 
time periods must be obtained.  After receiving no word about 
the SSBs, the promotion board reached out to the member again in 
Jul 12 for the PRFs.  Meeting the SSBs with the PRFs will 
provide a complete record and provide the best opportunity to be 
fairly compared amongst his peers.  Thus, meeting his 
expectations and fulfilling his request.

The applicant agrees an SSB is a solution but believes it to be 
“inadequate due to the senior raters at the time no longer being 
in government service and inaccessible.”  AFI 36-2406, sections 
A2.5.23 and A2.6.l, states if an evaluator cannot be located, 
evidence must be submitted of all attempts to locate the missing 
evaluator (i.e. certified mail receipts, emails, postal service, 
etc).  An evaluator will not be substituted or bypassed simply 
because they will not support an application or because the 
person does not believe they will have time to locate or contact 
them.  No such evidence was provided by the applicant.  Lacking 
proof of any attempt to locate the appropriate senior rater, no 
other senior rater can substitute.  If proof of attempt to 
locate is provided, a more current senior rater could be used to 
write the appropriate PRFs.

The applicant's statement claiming the promotion quota for a 
nonparticipating promotion board is "typically awarded to 
someone already passed over" is inaccurate.  The promotion zone 
is masked on USAFR Promotion Boards, ensuring both IPZ and APZ 
have an equal chance for promotion.  It is by a 50 percent 
chance that the one select from the CY12 Nonparticipating 
Reserve Board was APZ.  The result of the applicant being 
nonselect on the CY12 Nonparticipating Board does count as a 
one-time pass over.

The complete DPTT evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He agrees the information in para 1 and 2a - 2c are correct with 
one exception; while Title 10, USC § 14507(a) does characterize 
the limit of commissioned service; ARPC/DPTT omits USC § 
14701(a)(4) “(a) reserve officer holds the grade of lieutenant 
colonel or commander who is subject to separation under USC § 
14514 may not be continued in the Reserve beyond the last day of 
the month which the officer completes 33 years of commissioned 
service.

He contends that SSBs are not a fair remedy for the 
circumstances under which he missed promotion opportunities.  He 
missed the CY09 – CY11 boards; while he can certainly 
substantiate his claim that the raters cannot be found, he does 
not know how a rating chain that does not know him can give him 
a “fair shake,” when putting together a Promotion Recommendation 
Form (PRF).

He missed three consecutive boards from 2009 – 2011. 

He did not receive the Jan 12 notification, so the Jul 12 
notification was his first announcement about the board.

ARPC’s recommendation to deny an MSD extension is because they 
believe the SSB process fits better in the administrative remedy 
structure.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  In this 
respect, we note this Board is the highest administrative level 
of appeal within the Air Force.  As such, an applicant must 
first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief 
provided by existing law or regulations prior to seeking relief 
before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force 
Instruction.  The Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility has 
reviewed this application and indicated there is an available 
avenue of administrative relief the applicant has not first 
pursued.  Specifically, the applicant has not provided proof of 
his attempts to locate the missing evaluator.  In view of this, 
we find this application is not ripe for adjudication at this 
level, as there exists a subordinate level of appeal that has 
not first been depleted.  Therefore, in view of the above, we 
find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application.

3.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered.

________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the all available avenues of 
administrative relief of appeal within the Air Force have not 
been taken.  The application was denied without a personal 
appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon 
the submission if administrative relief failed to correct the 
alleged error or injustice.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-05134 in Executive Session on 9 Sep 14, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Oct 13, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Record.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPTT, 30 Dec 13.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 14.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Feb 14, w/atchs.





                                   Panel Chair