RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02295 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Correct his retirement rank to reflect Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col), O-5. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Personnel Center erroneously identified him as having been twice passed over for promotion to Lt Col on his “two below the zone” promotion board in 2008. This error consequently identified him as a three-time passed over Major on his first “in or above the zone promotion board.” The timeline is as follows: a. He returned from a tour of duty in Iraq on 14 May 2010. Within two weeks, he received an email from AFPC stating that he was scheduled for mandatory retirement. At that time he had no reason to question this. He had just hit 19 years of active duty service in April 2010 and this sounded plausible. He figured he would wait until the results from his first in the zone promotion board to Lt Col (7 Mar–25 Mar P0510A 2010) was released. If he was promoted, the mandatory retirement requirement would go away, if not promoted, he would retire. In August 2010 the results of the promotion board was announced and he was passed over. With this knowledge and the fact that he had a mandatory retirement date already set by AFPC, he would not be eligible for any more promotion boards. He followed the direction of the AFPC email and began the process of applying for retirement. b. On 15 March 2011, he attended the local base finance retirement briefing. He was briefed about possible AF recoupment of any owed debt. They checked his official finance records at that time; no debt was listed for him. On 14 April 2011, $232.09 was deposited from DFAS into his account for his April mid-month pay. He called the finance office and was told he had been identified as owing a debt for incomplete active duty service commitment (ADSC) for aviation continuation pay (ACP) in the amount of $10, 138.89. Research revealed the separation program designator (SPD) in his personnel record was incorrect. It showed his retirement as voluntary not mandatory; therefore, a debt was created. Further research revealed an incorrect code “67” indicated he was a multiple time passed over Major to Lt Col which incorrectly put him in a mandatory retirement classification and generated the 26 May 2010 email from AFPC stating that he was scheduled for a mandatory retirement. Eventually, deductions for the debt recoupment were stopped and his official retirement date was changed to 1 October 2011 which ensured his ADSCs would be fulfilled and ACP would not require any debt recoupment. c. The largest issue from these events was that the board members of P0510A, his first in the zone board, looked at his record as one that had already been passed over three times for promotion. As past promotion statistics clearly show, it is next to impossible for passed over officers to get promoted. The only time this occurs is when the passed over officer has a Definitely Promote (DP) on their promotion recommendation Form (PRF). The chance is even less for promotion to Lt Col if passed over. At the time, his records incorrectly showed that he had been passed over not just once, but three times and he did not have a DP or Super P on his PRF. This put his record in the “do not promote” pile from the beginning and for all intents and purposes left him basically no chance for promotion on his first board. With mandatory retirement set by AFPC his opportunity for promotion on his second or above the zone board was reduced to zero because he was not eligible. d. Even with the undeniable proof that the Air Force made a very large mistake on his behalf concerning his personnel record and his chance for promotion, there is no way that he could say for sure that he would have been promoted to Lt Col on his first in the zone board had no mistake been made. But neither can it be said that he would have still been passed over if his record was correct. They cannot go back and recreate the board with all its original members or go through the over 2000 records that were looked at on that board. His opportunity to be promoted by that board was unjustly taken away from him when the erroneous code was put in his record in 2008. e. AFPC offered him the chance to go before a special selection promotion board after the mistake was discovered. His record at that special selection promotion board would have been exactly as it would have been at his second in or above the zone board that he missed. He had no new officer performance report (OPR) or PRF accomplished at that time. There was no need since he was not eligible for the board and was being forced to retire. Nor had he had a chance over the previous year to accomplish the necessary high profile jobs and additional duties needed in order to get the “DP” or “Super P,” from the Wing/CC, on his PRF. Without these very important items there was no reason to meet the special selection promotion board. Weighing all that had happened over the previous year, he decided it was best for him and his family that he retired on 1 October 2011. f. Although it may seem at this point that any ruling in his favor would be academic since he is no longer on active duty, he still serves and wears the uniform every day as an AFJROTC Senior Aerospace Science Instructor at a high school in Georgia. The Air Force made a huge error on his part which played a very large role, either directly or indirectly, in his being passed over for promotion which then caused him to miss his second in the zone board which strongly influenced his decision to retire. It would be an incredible teaching opportunity and life lesson to show his students that even the U.S. Air Force can make a mistake. But when it does it will respond and act in accordance with its very first and most important core value of “integrity first.” He humbly places this most important matter in the hands of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) and will honor the decision the Board makes. In support of his request, the applicant submits a six page personal statement and emails and documents pertaining to his retirement processing actions. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to documents extracted from the Automated Records Management System, the applicant is a former commissioned officer of the Regular Air Force who served from 15 April 1991 through 30 September 2011. He was progressively promoted to the grade of Major, (O-4), with an Effective Date of Pay Grade of 1 March 2006. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. DPSOO states that when the CY10A Lieutenant Colonel board was built, the applicant was built as an in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) eligible. Zone eligibility is based on date of rank only. The master eligibility listing (MEL) provided to senior raters reflected his zone as IPZ and therefore, he counted in the number of DPs the senior rater earned. At no time, was there any documentation to reflect that the applicant was above-the-promotion zone. The officer selection brief (OSB) did reflect the erroneous date of separation (DOS) but did not reflect a DOS reason. Therefore, board members did not score his records as being a deferred officer but as an IPZ officer. The applicant should have met the CY11A Lt Colonel board as an above the promotion zone (APZ) eligible. Based on the erroneous DOS, he was ineligible to do so. The applicant was given the opportunity to meet a supplemental board for the CY11A Lt Colonel board. Had the applicant chosen to meet an SSB, a PRF would have been requested through his command channels and an OPR would have been directed. Insufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice regarding the applicant’s request for direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. An officer may be qualified for promotion, but, in the judgment of a selection board vested with discretionary authority to make the selections, he may not be the best qualified of those available for the limited number of promotion vacancies. Further, to grant a direct promotion would be unfair to all other officers who have extremely competitive records and also did not get promoted. They disapprove the request for direct promotion to Lt Colonel, however, they do recommend that the applicant’s record meet an SSB for the CY10A Lt Colonel Central Selection Board with a corrected Officer Selection Brief. Had the error not occurred, the applicant’s DOS would have been reflected as indefinite. Since there was nothing in his records that could be viewed by the board to reflect that he was above the promotion zone, they believe he received a fair look despite the invalid DOS. In addition, if the applicant desires, they can direct the accomplishment of a PRF and OPR. The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant expands on his explanation of the erroneous code “67” in his personnel record. He indicates the reason the AFPC reviewer could not find the code or any documentation in his record at the time of their review is because the code “67” was removed in April 2011 when it was discovered to be incorrect. When this code was removed his DOS automatically updated to indefinite. The mandatory DOS and code “67” was in fact in his record at the time of his promotion boards beginning with the CY09B board. Senior raters and all promotion board members are well aware that on a Lt Col promotion board, any officer with a specified DOS has in fact been passed over 2 times or more. And if the DOS was not enough evidence that he had supposedly been passed over at least twice already, the code “67” would have been absolute proof for the reason of the 30 April 2011 DOS. He had no idea at that time that specified DOS during his Lt Col boards would be a direct indicator to the promotion board members that he was already a 2 or more times deferred Major to Lt Col. That information was never brought to his attention during any promotion board training he received from his senior leadership during his 20- year Air Force career. He became aware of the importance of a correct DOS for promotions during his research for this case. He strongly believes a decision by the AFBCMR members in his favor is the only way to truly right the wrong caused by the Air Force. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. After reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the applicant was given the opportunity to meet a supplemental board for the CY11A Lt Colonel board but decided it was best for him and his family that he retire on 1 October 2011 instead, since, he contended, he had no new officer performance report (OPR) or promotion recommendation form (PRF) accomplished at that time. While we can appreciate the applicant's feelings with respect to the perception he describes, we are not convinced this argument warrants correction of his retirement rank to lieutenant colonel. 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ 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 15 February 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-02295: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 May 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 24 July 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 August 2012. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, 26 August 2012, w/atchs.