APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his retirement be voided and that he be reinstated to active duty and returned to his assignment in Europe.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was forced to retire due to his selection by the 1992 Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) and was never informed as to why he was selected. He goes on to state that he has an admirable record, numerous awards, 15 years experience as an instructor pilot, and over 5,300 hours of accident free flying time.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted on 27 March 1972 for a period of 3 years under the warrant officer flight training enlistment option. He successfully completed his training and was appointed as a USAR warrant officer one on 16 April 1973 with a concurrent call to active duty. He accepted an appointment into the Regular Army on 7 November 1983 and was promoted to the grade of CW4 on 1 October 1987.
On 26 March 1993, while stationed in Germany, the applicant submitted a request for voluntary retirement to be effective 30 June 1993. His request was approved on 27 April 1993.
Accordingly, he was honorably released from active duty on 30 June 1993 and placed on the retired list effective 1 July 1993 in the grade of CW4. He had served 21 years, 3 months, and 4 days of total active service. His report of separation (DD Form 214) indicates that he was retired under the provisions of section 638 of title 10, U.S. Code due to a reduction in authorized strength.
Title 10, U.S. Code, section 638 serves as the authority for
conduct of the SERB. It states, in pertinent part, that the Secretary of the Army will convene selection boards to consider Regular Army officers who are eligible for retirement and are not on a list of officers selected for promotion.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
2. Although the applicants records do not contain any indication of his selection for separation/retirement by a SERB, it is reasonable to presume, based on the separation authority contained on his DD Form 214, that he was selected by a SERB and was properly afforded the opportunity to apply for retirement based on his length of service.
3. The applicants contentions that he was unjustly forced to retire without the benefit of knowing why he was selected by a SERB, is without merit. It is a well known fact that officer selection boards do not reveal their reasons for selection or nonselection. Therefore, the applicants contentions are speculative at best and are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.
4. It is unfortunate that the applicant was not selected for retention on active duty. However, this Board does not wish to act as a super-selection board by second-guessing selection boards which were afforded the benefit of comparing the applicants record of performance and evaluating his potential for further service against that of his peers. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence of error or injustice there is no basis to approve the applicants request.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
GRANT
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
At the time the FY92 SERB was first announced to the field (in early September 1991) the law did not permit exclusion of eligibility of officers with approved retirements from consideration by SERBs; therefore, at that time, even though applicant had an approved retirement, he met the eligibility requirements to be considered by SERB for early retirement. Additionally, applicant was not considered or selected for retirement by the FY92 SERB which convened in January 1992 but,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084738C070212
The applicant also claims that in 1993, he was informed by the Aviation Branch Manager, Officer Personnel Management Directorate (OPMD), Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), that his military records were forwarded to the 1993 COL selection board for consideration for promotion to COL. After several days, he was contacted by the branch manager and informed that the likely reasons for his SERB selection were that the records reviewed by the SERB incorrectly listed his years of active...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050008302
On 27 May 1993, the applicant requested early retirement. If he is selected for promotion, the applicant may then submit a request for further relief based upon that selection for promotion. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing he timely requested consideration by a special selection board and by submitting his records to a duly constituted special selection board for reconsideration for promotion to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00782
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Had he been selected for promotion to the grade of colonel by the original selection board, he would not have been eligible for the Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB), and would not have been forced to retired on 1 February 1993. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit K. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
The only evidence applicant submits to support his request is a 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article reporting an out-of-court settlement in Baker v. United States, 34 Fed.Cl. In regard to the merits of the applicant’s requests, AF/JAG states that first, they recommend the application be denied as untimely. For the public policy reasons discussed above, they believe the Board should not permit an out-of-court settlement agreement to be used as evidence the applicant was not fairly...
Applicant explains that he was unaware of the problem with the conduct of the SERB, and the Air Force’s settlement in the Baker case until reading about it in the 14 September 1998 Air Force Times article. Thus, the Board would have to reach the conclusion that the Air Force settled the Baker case because the Charge was flawed and consequently, applicant’s selection for early retirement constituted an error or injustice. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
DPPB stated that is exactly what happens on Air Force promotion boards. As noted previously, there is no provision of law that specifically requires each member of a promotion board to personally review and score the record of each officer being considered by the board. Sections 616 and 617 require consensus among 'la majority of the members of the board" about the officers to be recommended for promotion.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057122C070420
Current promotion policy specifies that promotion reconsideration by a special selection board (SSB) may only be based on erroneous non-consideration or material error, which existed in the records at the time of consideration. The Chief, Promotion and Notifications Branch, Office of Promotions, PERSCOM, expressed the opinion that based on the 6 years time in grade requirement, the applicant was in zone for promotion consideration by the 1991 through 2001 RCSB’s. The Board notes that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02989
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Block 18, on his DD Form 214 indicates he is Subject to recall to active duty by the Secretary of the Air Force. However, since he was selected for early retirement under 10 USC §638, this statement does not fully reflect 10 USC §688 nor AFI 36- 3207, Separating Commissioned Officers, Chapter 2, paragraph 2.16 which states, Officers retired by selective early retirement board (SERB) under 10 USC §638 are not recalled to active duty unless by Congress or the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001051136C070420
The applicant was considered by the next available Reserve CW3 Promotion Board, the FY94 promotion board, but was not selected for promotion. The effective date for the applicant’s promotion to CW3 from the FY95 board His present promotion memorandum to CW4, dated 1 August 2000, should be corrected to be dated 19 May 2000, the adjournment date of the promotion board and therefore the effective date for promotion to CW4 and the date from which CW4 pay and allowances should be paid.