RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01951
		INDEX CODE:  131.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he retired in the grade of Colonel (O-6).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served 23 years and was not willing or able to accept a command tour overseas.  As a result, he had to retire three months prior to the minimum two years Time in Grade (TIG) needed to be eligible for retirement as an O-6.  He was a candidate on the AF 2007 Group Command list but did not originally get selected for command.  Shortly after the initial command select list was distributed, his supervisor was contacted and informed of his selection to assume command of a group.  Unfortunately, there were legal issues occurring at the gaining hiring authority’s base that delayed his departure and immediate assumption of command.

During this waiting period, he received an email from the AF Colonel’s Group indicating that he had been selected for a command at a remote overseas location.  This occurred even though the Colonels’ Group was aware of his hiring status at another location.  He was not prepared for the surprising way that he was informed about taking command of a group at a remote assignment.  He received no warning, no coordination, nothing except an email sent to his personnel representative to relay.  As a result of the last minute change and impact on his family, he reluctantly decided to retire.  He requested an exception to policy to retire as an O-6, but was informed that he would not be eligible.  

He was not a mediocre leader or performer as noted by his career performance, evaluations and awards.  He performed for 11 months in an O-6 position as an O-5 without benefit of O-6 pay or being frocked prior to his permanent promotion.  He was unofficially informed that had he requested to retire during the initial AF drawdown he could have been retired as an O-6; however, retirement was not an issue for him at that time.  He believes there were mitigating circumstances that could have been considered before disregarding his request for an exception to policy.

In support of the application, he submits his personal statement, an electronic mail message, his exception to policy request letter, two (2) AF IMT Form 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Reports, and the Defense Superior Service Medal award.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was honorably retired on 31 Aug 08 after serving 25 years, 4 months and 29 days on active duty.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. 

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AF/DPO recommends denial.  DPO states that the applicant was not eligible to retire under the 2007 Force Shaping policy exemption because he did not have two years time in grade (TIG) in order to retire through the program.  Only the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) is authorized to waive TIG requirements (to retire in the current grade) from three years TIG to two years TIG; any reduction beyond two years would be in direct violation of the law.  The applicant was actually 15 months short of the TIG requirement to retire in the grade of O-6 and not three months as stated on his application.

The complete DPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response dated 19 Aug 08, the applicant states he is not asking for a technical viewpoint, but a decision based on fairness and justice.  He voluntarily submitted his paperwork; however, he did so based on his options – accept his new assignment or retire.  He reluctantly elected to retire but annotated his displeasure at the bottom of the Statement of Understanding.  

He also reiterates his earlier comments regarding his assignment.  He concludes that he never complained nor requested special consideration for any assignment regardless of whether it was a short-notice deployment, remote, or routine assignment.

His complete submission 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  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 issues involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 30 Oct 08 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2008-01951:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 01 Dec 07, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AF/DPO, dated 8 Jul 08.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jul 08.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Aug 08.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair