RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05678 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her retirement date be changed from 1 Jan 11 to 1 Feb 11. ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was unfairly targeted by the Assistant Adjutant General for the Arizona Air National Guard (ATAG AZANG). Her chain of command recommended her for an extension of her Active Guard Reserve (AGR) active duty tour until 1 Apr 11. However, the ATAG disapproved her request and shortened her tour causing her to be 22 days shy of completing 34 years of service. She notes that the ATAG was investigated by the Secretary of the Air Force Inspector General (SAF/IG) for "abuse of power/authority" in several instances. The allegations were substantiated and the Adjutant General of Arizona (AZ TAG) and the Governor of Arizona relieved him of his command and banned him from the AZANG state headquarters. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 31 Dec 10, the applicant was relieved from active duty and transferred to the Retired Reserve and her name was placed on the USAF Retired List. She was credited with 29 years and 25 days or active service for retirement and 33 years, 11 months and 9 days of service for basic pay. The applicant filed an IG complaint against the ATAG alleging that he had abused his authority by not retaining her beyond 31 Dec 10. On 5 Jan 11, the SAF/IGS determined the evidence indicated the Arizona Adjutant General (AZ TAG), not the ATAG, had closely examined the applicant’s situation on more than one occasion, even having his Command Chief Master Sergeant provide him with additional information on her overall situation. He extended her orders to 31 Dec 10 in concert with her and the wing’s wishes. This was a reasonable extension given her personal circumstance of being retirement eligible; the Arizona State’s CMSgt AGR control grades being fully utilized (full manning levels), and the new commander having enough time to fully learn her job before having to hire a new superintendent. The date chosen was consistent with the wing’s stated desires and at the end of the calendar year when individuals that separate under retention programs usually depart. The decision not to grant the additional 31 days just for retirement pay purposes is consistent with past decisions. Finally, the TAG’s motive was to provide ample time for the unit to prepare for the change and give the applicant ample time to determine what she wanted to do next, of which retirement was one option. The above analysis does not provide any prima facie evidence of possible wrongdoing on the part of the ATAG. Although he was certainly involved in advising TAG on decisions, TAG was the responsible management official (RMO) in this situation. As the ATAG, he had the right to actively lead and manage his units, to include getting involved in such matters and advising his boss. Although his hands-on style in doing this may be a departure from the style of his predecessors, it did not fall into any category of wrongdoing on this issue. Hence, they did not recommend investigating this issue further. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1P concurred with the subject matter expert (SME) and recommend relief not be granted based on the ANG Instruction and lack of documentation to substantiate an injustice had occurred. A1PO states the applicant has included evidence supporting an abuse of authority was substantiated towards Brig Gen S.; however, there is no evidence provided to support the allegation that this same abuse of authority occurred towards the applicant. A1PO notes that NGB/A1PP recommends denial. Separation for non- retained members is required to be completed prior to 31 Dec of the year in which the retention board is convened in accordance with ANGI 36-2606, Selective Retention of Air National Guard Officer and Enlisted Personnel. There is no evidence the applicant requested reconsideration of the decision to allow retention beyond 31 Dec 10. Furthermore, no evidence was provided to support an abuse of authority occurred towards the applicant. ANGI 36-2606, para 3.1 provides authority for the TAG to approve or disapprove any or all specific recommendations for selective retention. TAGs may direct separation between 1 Oct and 31 Dec of the calendar year of the board provided that the member is permitted at least 30 days in which to respond to the notification of non-retention. Per ANGI 36-2606, paragraph 3.2 "In exceptional circumstances, TAG may retain a member no more than six months past the 31 Dec separation/discharge date for the purpose of recruiting and training a replacement, upcoming unit compliance inspection (UCI), operational readiness inspection (ORI), or other circumstances deemed necessary by TAG. TAG is the ultimate authority for any retention decision six months beyond 31 Dec. The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The basic premise of A1P’s advisory is flawed. A1P uses the selective retention guidelines as their basis, which is incorrect. The issue is one of an extension of her AGR orders and her enlistment. She was not in a selective retention cycle or on any selective retention roster. The action to extend her AGR tour was outside the scope of any selective retention program and was done out of vindictiveness and spite by the ATAG in direct opposition of her commanders. No other basis exists for this action and the ATAG was investigated and allegations were substantiated. In addition, she provides an email and personal statement suggesting that her group commander wanted her to be retained until 31 Jan 11. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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. The applicant alleges she has been the victim of reprisal and has not been afforded full protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034). Based on this, she is requesting her retirement date be changed to 1 Feb 11. We note the Inspector General investigated the alleged abuse of authority by the applicant’s State military officials; however, they recommended no further investigation on this matter. Contrary to the applicant’s assertions that she was unfairly targeted by the ATAG, the evidence reveals that it was actually the AZ TAG that denied her retention beyond 31 Dec 10; not the ATAG. SAF/IG found this determination was consistent with other members within the State that were similarly situated. Based on our own independent review, we did not find that TAG’s actions were arbitrary or capricious or that his actions were motivated by retaliation for the applicant making a protected communication. Therefore, without substantial evidence to substantiate the ATAG or TAG abused their power against the applicant, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the National Guard Bureau office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-05678 in Executive Session on 21 May 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Dec 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. SAF/IG Report of Investigation, WITHDRAWN. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 24 Jan 13, w/atch. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Feb 13. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Feb 13. Panel Chair