RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04981 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His mandatory retirement date of 1 Feb 11 be changed back to his original retirement date of 1 Nov 11 with service credit for time served from 1 Feb 11 to 1 Nov 11. 2. As an alternative, his retirement date be changed to 1 May 11 and he receive a new retirement multiplier for the correct calculation of retired pay based on the new retirement date. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In a three page brief, the applicant makes the following key contentions: 1. According to the instructions governing the Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB), his commander was required to give him his Retention Recommendation Form (RRF) no later than 30 Jul 10; however, the RRF was signed by the general officer on 18 Aug 10 and emailed to him while he was on leave. He received the RRF on 20 Aug 10, the Air Force’s cutoff date for accepting voluntary retirement applications with an effective date of 1 May 11. The fact that he was so close to completing a 30 year career made his decision all the more difficult. 2. Because he received the RRF 3 weeks late, he was denied an opportunity to make an informed decision to apply for retirement in lieu of meeting the SERB. He was denied the minimum required time of 21 days to weigh his options. It was unreasonable to expect anyone to make such a big career decision on the same day of receiving notification (his commander’s retention recommendation) as the retirement application was required to be submitted. He was forced to meet the board because the general officer did not comply with the published standards for the SERB, resulting in him being selected for early retirement. 3. Since being retired, he found out that the SERB board appears to have selected officers for early retirement based on length of service rather than the required qualitative records review. He does not have access to the SERB list, but believes this to be true. He believes the board selected the oldest 30 percent for early retirement rather than conducting the head to head competition as directed in the instructions, which is in violation of the Secretary of the Air Force’s (SECAF) policy. 4. After reviewing the initial results released from the 2010 SERB, it was immediately clear to him that a predominant factor in selection was age/length of service. Further analysis of publically released and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) information did not show any statistically significant preference for selection due to gender, race, career field, below-the-zone status, command, education level or any other factor between the various age/year groups. However, age/length of service discrimination is clear. Test results are categorized as significant with a p-value that, simply put, says the odds of this outcome happening without age/length of service discrimination are 1 out 165 Billion. The SECAF could have chosen to direct that the board be conducted using age/length of service as the primary factor for discriminating between candidates for retention, but for obvious reasons, he did not. 5. The SECAF Memorandum of Instructions to the SERB board clearly states that, “Give no weight, whatsoever, to an officer’s age”. It should be clear that the age and length of service are inextricably linked. Using age/length of service as the deciding factor was not only in conflict with the SECAF’s directions, it was contrary to all the officially stated press releases/briefings. 6. One of his primary responsibilities while he was serving on active duty was to provide oversight on nuclear surety and nuclear weapons safety. He was also one of the few officers with Strategic Air Command experience as well as a war plan advisor. This was a part of the SECAF’s instructions to the SERB board, which stated to retain officers with “a keen understanding in joint matters … to include other departments and agencies of the United States and the military forces of other countries.” The instructions also said to “give special consideration to nuclear experienced officers.” In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of a AF/DPO Memorandum, a copy of his RRF, email communications, a copy of SECAF’s Memorandum of Instruction to the SERB, a copy of SERB results by CYOS, a copy of Chi-squared test, a copy of Correlating Coefficient Results, a copy of the SERB Section Criteria, a copy of Public Affairs Guidance, a copy of his Defense Superior Service Medal (DSSM) Certificate and Citation, and a copy of his Legion of Merit (LOM) Certificate. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ _ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant retired from the Regular Air Force on 1 Feb 11 in the grade of colonel. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/DPO recommends denial. The applicant did not receive his RRF 30 days prior to the SERB board convening as required by the instructions. He received the RRF on 20 Aug 10, which was 10 days prior to the SERB. He claims he was not afforded the opportunity to make an educated decision on whether to meet the SERB or voluntarily retire in lieu of meeting the board. However, he does not state whether he asked for an extension or to be given special consideration since he had not received his RRF with ample time to make an informed decision prior to the SERB convening. Had he contacted their office, he would have likely been given an extension, as another officer requested retirement in lieu of SERB on 24 Aug 10 and was approved post the established deadline on 25 Aug 10. By not taking any action, the applicant made the decision to meet the SERB despite the compressed timeline. The applicant contends that the CY10A SERB intentionally used age and length of service as a primary decision factor in selecting individuals for early retirement, and as a result he was unjustly retired on 1 Feb 11. In his letter, he sites post board demographics that show 30/51 (58 percent) of those officers meeting the board with more than 28 years of service were involuntarily separated. He also provides a Chi-Squared test results to compare the differences in the selection rate for the various groups and concluded that age/length of service were in correlation with selection for early retirement. As the applicant points out, he had both joint and nuclear experience; however, he lacked key leadership experience and had never deployed. Furthermore, in reviewing the post board demographics, officers who did not promote early and who had not been to Senior Development Education (SDE) in residence were selected for a retirement at a rate similar to those with 28 years of service, 49 percent and 57 percent, respectively. Therefore, these factors coupled with other factors may have contributed to his selection for early retirement. The majority of officers eligible for the 2010 SERB had 26-28 years of service, officers identified with less years of commissioned service were those promoted early and were also selected for retirement. Finally, the board members are required to sign a report that certifies that he or she acted in accordance with all percepts set forth by the SECAF to include fair and equitable consideration and did not consider an officer’s age as a deciding factor. In addition, the demographic information such as age, sex, gender, race, etc., was not provided to the board members. The SERB process was extremely competitive and although 58 percent of the colonels with 28 years of service or more who met the board were selected for retirement, there is no clear evidence that the board deliberately targeted the applicant for retirement based solely on his age and not other factors. The complete DPO evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14 Dec 12 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 an error or injustice. We have thoroughly reviewed the available evidence pertaining to the applicant’s request to change his mandatory retirement date to allow him to attain a 30-year retirement. The applicant asserts that the SERB used age/length of service as a factor when selecting individuals for retirement; contrary to the SECAF Memorandum of Instructions. Notwithstanding the applicant’s view, we find insufficient evidence that the applicant was selected for early retirement as a result of his age/length of service. Based on the evidence before us, it appears the applicant received fair and equitable consideration in accordance with the policies established by the Secretary of the Air Force. As such, we agree with the opinion of AF/DPO and adopt its rationale as the basis for our determination and find that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-04981 in Executive Session on 1 Aug 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated, w/atchs. Exhibit C. Letter, AF/DPO, dated 7 Dec 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 12.