Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02497
Original file (BC 2014 02497.txt) Auto-classification: Approved
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2014-02497
		
	 		COUNSEL:  NONE
		
			HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

A date of separation be established under the rules of 
involuntary separation or in accordance with the Fiscal Year 
2014 (FY14) Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) force management 
program. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was twice passed over for promotion and was continued in lieu 
of separation with pay due to the needs of the Air Force.  At 
the same time of his continuation, the Air Force was planning 
the FY14 force reduction.  

United States Code (U.S.C) 10 section 632 states that a twice 
passed over officer should be separated involuntarily with pay.  
The only exception is the needs of the service; in accordance 
with 10 USC 611.b which states when retaining the officer is 
critical to national security.  He was continued under this 
pretense.  This has deprived him of compensation dictated by 
law.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of this Air Force.  On 13 March 
2013, he was notified of his non-selection for promotion to the 
grade of major.  He was also notified that he had been selected 
for continuation.  He was honorably discharged on 18 January 
2015 in the grade of captain.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends approval.  A review of applicant's 
personnel record reflects he applied for VSP on 6 February 2014.  
Based on his 2003 year group and Air Force Specialty Code 
(AFSC), his eligibility to apply was confirmed and his 
application was held for adjudication.  In accordance with PSDM 
14-08, dated 23 January 2014, HQ AF/A1 authorized AFPC limited 
approval authority for members who had no active duty service 
commitment (ADSC) or who had an ADSC that AFPC was authorized to 
waive and approve (i.e. tuition assistance).  All other 
applicants who had an ADSC that could not be approved by AFPC 
had to be held until the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) 
approved granting the expanded ADSC waiver authority to AFPC. 

The applicant had an ADSC for Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) 
which was not within the purview of AFPC to waive and approve; 
therefore, it needed to be held pending further authority from 
SecAF.  Only a small handful of applications were approved 
during the late March, early April adjudication and none 
requiring waiver of the UPT ADSC.

The next phase of adjudication of VSP applications occurred in 
May 2014.  Prior to this phase, HQ AF/A1 determined that the 
officer's AFSC/year group was no longer eligible for the VSP 
program.  Although AFPC was granted expanded waiver authority 
by this time, HQ AF/A1 determined that the applicant's year 
group and AFSC had already sustained enough losses to close 
out the AFSC and not allow any additional approvals for VSP. 
Therefore, the applicant's application along with all other 
applicants in his year group and AFSC were disapproved.

Although the applicant's UPT ADSC precluded AFPC from approving 
his VSP application, it appears the applicant submitted a 
request for date of separation (DOS) that would have consummated 
after the completion of his ADSC.  Therefore, in hindsight, AFPC 
should have considered his VSP application and recommended 
approval since the ADSC would not have been a factor.

The procedures for processing VSP applications were conducted 
in accordance with the instructions provided by HQ AF/Al; 
however, in the interest of justice, the Board should consider 
granting the applicant's request to have his VSP application 
reconsidered for approval.

The complete DPSOPR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He whole-heartedly agrees with the advisory opinion 
recommendation to allow him to separate with pay.  He notes that 
while AFPC did not have the authority to waive his UPT ADSC; 
this was not an issue as his requested date of separation was 
after his ADSC would have expired.  His case did not need a 
waiver and should have been considered in the first round of 
approvals.

The applicant’s complete response 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  After a 
thorough review of the evidence, we believe correction is 
warranted.  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that his 
VSP application should have been considered and subsequently 
approved since his requested date of separation was after his 
ADSC expired.  Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s 
record be corrected as indicated below.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he applied 
for separation under the Voluntary Separation Pay (VSP) program 
and under the guidelines set forth in PSDM 14-08 was approved 
for VSP separation which entitles him to voluntary separation 
pay and all benefits associated with VSP.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2014-02497 in Executive Session on 5 February 2015, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number 
BC-2014-02497 was considered:

  Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Jun 14, w/atchs.
  Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Record Excerpts. 
  Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 7 Oct 14.
  Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, 17 Nov 14.
  Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, dated 24 Nov 14.

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00360

    Original file (BC 2014 00360.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 13-14, FY13 Enlisted Date of Separation (DOS) Rollback Program, dated 13 Feb 13 states that members with less than 6 years of active service separated under the DOS Rollback program will be separated with SPD code “JBK.” Her AF IMT 100, Request and Authorization for Separation, Item 23, Remarks, reads SPD code “JBK.” The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. If any recoupment of unearned portions of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000075

    Original file (0000075.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 March 1998, the applicant was presented an OFFICER/AIRMAN ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE COMMITMENT (ADSC) COUNSELING STATEMENT, AF Form 63, acknowledging that he would incur an eight-year ADSC upon completion of PV4PC (apparently pilot training), but he declined to sign the form. The issue of whether applicant had knowledge of his eight-year commitment becomes muddled because Academy graduates did not sign an AF Form 63 (or any other documentation) specifically setting out the commitment length...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03463

    Original file (BC 2013 03463.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was notified the control roster action automatically placed him on the FY13 Rollback Program. He contacted the Separations office at Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Randolph to correct this issue, but they were unable to manually change separation code on DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, because the automatic LGH separation code was loaded in their system. On 15 Jul 13, the applicant was separated under the FY13 DOS Rollback Program, with a RE code of 2X;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05412

    Original file (BC 2012 05412.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The denial letter stated, in part, “at no time were you held beyond an approved retirement date due to stop-loss” However, PL 111-32, § 310, in addition to covering circumstances extending service beyond an approved retirement date, states “ or whose eligibility for retirement was suspended pursuant to 10 U.S.C. He is only claiming retroactive stop-loss special pay compensation for the time between 11 September 2001, when the stop-loss rules went into effect, and the 12-month period of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802066

    Original file (9802066.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Upon being asked to comment on applicant’s request that his ACP agreement be effective as of November 1997, HQ AFPC/DPAR states, in part, that current Air Force policy does not allow pilots to get ADSC “credit” for variable length ACP agreements. He has applied Air Force policy guidance consistently to all pilots with incorrect UPT ADSCs who have requested to be eligible for ACP based on the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00274

    Original file (BC 2014 00274.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00274 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be retired in the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col, O-5). The TIG waiver program allowed certain Lt Cols to request retirement with no less than 2 years TIG and be retired in the grade of Lt Col; however, under the FY12 program parameters, the retirement must have been effective no later than 1 Sep 12. He...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00769

    Original file (BC 2014 00769.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00769 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty be changed from LGH which denotes “Non-Retention on Active Duty” to LBK which denotes “Expiration of Term of Service.” APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He is not seeking any monetary compensation as he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02460

    Original file (BC 2014 02460 .txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02460 COUNSEL: NONE INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His involuntary separation decision by the Quality Force Review Board (QFRB) be declared void and removed from his records. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His AF Form 910, Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) (AB thru TSgt), rendered for the period 13 August 2013 thru 1 March 2014 was not considered by the QFRB...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0101844

    Original file (0101844.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFPC/DPSFO noted that the applicant graduated UPT in Nov 95 and incurred an eight-year ADSC in accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-2107, Active Duty Service Commitments (ADSC) and Specified Period of Time Contracts (SPTC), Table 1.4, Rule 6, dated 6 Jul 94. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSFO evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response, the applicant indicated that the original...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900292

    Original file (9900292.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Despite this, the applicant claims the MPF stated he had to accept the C-141 training because he had three and one-half years remaining on his UPT ADSC. Despite Block II of the AF Form 63 not being initialed, the applicant signed the AF Form 63 reflecting the correct ADSC and thus accepted the ADSC (Exhibit C with Attachments 1 through 4). In this case, however, the applicant has presented persuasive evidence that he agreed to the C-141 IQT training under the assumption that he would incur...