RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05116 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His mandatory retirement date of 1 February 2011, established by the Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB), be changed to the original mandatory retirement date of 1 November 2011. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During the August 2010 SERB, he was selected to retire earlier than his planned 30 year service mark of 1 November 2011. It can be proven that the SERB used age/length of service as the deciding factor in selecting individuals for early retirement. This is in direct violation of the Secretary of the Air Forces (SECAF) Memorandum of Instructions (MOI) to the SERB. In his first assignment as an O-6 (colonel), his duties included being the AF Senior promotion board personnel analyst with supervision of the entire analysis branch at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC). In this position, he supervised and reviewed the board results/briefings to SECAF. Upon review of the initial results from the 2010 SERB, it was clear the predominant factor in selection was age/length of service. Further analysis of publically released information does not show any statistical 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. In the SECAF MOI to the board, it clearly states to “give no weight, whatsoever, to an officer’s age.” It should be clear that age and length of service are linked. If you perform a correlation analysis using the end of month September 2010 raw data from AFPC, you get a perfect coefficient of .8427. This value shows a strong correlation and shows that any discrimination in regards to length of service also discriminates with regards to age. Using age/length of service as a deciding factor in the SERB selection was not only in conflict with SECAF’s directions, it was contrary to the officially stated press releases/briefings. The AF gave officer’s that were SERB eligible the opportunity to avoid the board and voluntarily retire. He declined this option based on the AF’s announcement that the board would use a process similar to the promotion selection board process. After consulting with supervisors and senior officers, he was advised that with his outstanding record he would almost certainly be retained. Had he known the SERB would not use the normal promotion board process but instead use age/length of service as the primary consideration factor, he would not have met the SERB. His intent for submitting this request is not to reap a financial windfall, but rather try to regain some measure of dignity for the erroneous and embarrassing termination of a distinguished, lengthy career just short of the prestigious 30- year mark. In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal statement, SECAF memo, SERB results, supporting charts, selection criteria, selection results, public affairs guidance, officer performance reports and his retention recommendation form. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Air Force who retired on 31 January 2011 after 29 years, 3 months and 23 days of active duty service. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AF/DPO recommends denial. The applicant was commissioned into the Air Force on 8 October 1981 and entered undergraduate pilot training. He flew the UH-1N and later became a Math Instructor at the Air Force Academy. He was selected to attend the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) to obtain his PhD in Mathematics. He then returned to the Academy as the Division Chief of Calculus and Math Sciences. He completed his Air Force career as the Associate Dean AFIT, with an established retirement date of 1 February 2011. The SECAF MOI clearly stated that the board was to give no weight, whatsoever, to an officer’s age. It also advised the board to consider the following when evaluating records: Air Force personnel performing duties in Iraq, experiences, education and language skills that contribute to broader cultural awareness, acquisition or contracting experience, nuclear experience and joint duty experience. The applicant lacked the depth and breadth of experience with 58% of his career being in academia as either a student or an instructor. Additionally he had not held any significant command leadership positions, having only one position as a deputy commander. By law, officers must have 4 years of time-in-grade as a colonel to be eligible for the SERB. They also cannot have a mandatory retirement date in the fiscal year in which the selection board is convened or the following fiscal year. The majority of the officers eligible for the 2010 SERB were officers who had not been promoted early and had 26 to 28 years of service. Officers identified with less years of commissioned service were those officers promoted below their primary zone. As reflected in the submitted charts, several officers who were promoted early were also selected for retirement. The applicant never held an O-6 level command position, never deployed, had not been assigned to a Major Command or Headquarters staff and never held a command position while rated early in his career. The cumulative total of those officers selected for retirement between 26 and 28 years of service was 108, approximately 42% of the eligible. While 58% is greater than the average of the three year groups, it is not significantly greater. In accordance with SECAF’s MOI each member was required to sign a report that certified they acted in accordance with all precepts set forth by the SECAF to include fair and equitable consideration not giving weight to age. Since the board is not furnished with an officer’s age, the applicant’s contention that age was used as a discriminating factor is without merit. The SERB process was extremely competitive. Although 58% of those eligible with 28 years of service were selected for retirement, there is no clear evidence the board targeted the applicant 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 December 2012 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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-2012-05116 in Executive Session on 11 July 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-05116 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Oct 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AF/DPO, dated 7 Dec 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Dec 12. Panel Chair