RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03689 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be granted retirement eligibility under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) or; 2. His 31 Dec 14 involuntary separation be rescinded and he be continued on active duty, and; 3. He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (O-5), by the Calendar Year (CY) 15A In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: By his interpretation of the regulations an officer is subject to force shaping based on their active duty date, which in his case is 2001. As it is now, his record is being force shaped in the 1999 year group. Due to the current disconnect, his records are at a disadvantage for force shaping when grouped with his 1999 year group peers who have two more years of service, performance reports and awards. In contradiction, his record is not eligible for TERA, like his 1999 year group peers, because two years of service during the AFIT program are not counted for TERA eligibility. His evaluation for retention and retirement should be consistently evaluated with either the 1999 or the 2001 year group. The two- year misalignment in his service dates has caused a major disconnect in his promotion, retention, and retirement situation. As a result, he was evaluated for retention in his commissioning year, 1999, instead of being evaluated in the year he entered active duty (2001). His records should be consistently evaluated due to the two year misalignment in his service dates. This error in his official record may have affected his non- selection for promotion. He should be allowed to retire under TERA based on his 15 years of service beginning from his August 1999 commissioning date to include the two years he served in the Air Force Institute of Technology/Civilian Institute (AFIT/CI) educational delay program. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to Reserve Order 019, dated 8 Aug 99, the applicant was appointed to the grade of Second Lieutenant (2Lt, O-1) in the USAFR, effective 15 Aug 99. According to Special Order Number A-320, dated 7 Nov 00, the applicant was ordered to Extended Active Duty (EAD), effective 11 Jul 01, for an indefinite period of time. According to the Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS), the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) and Total Active Federal Commission Service date (TAFCSD) were both established as 11 Jul 01. On 17 Jul 13, the applicant was considered but not selected for promotion by the Calendar Year 2013A (CY13A) Lieutenant Colonel Line of the Air Force (LAF) Central Selection Board (CSB). On 25 Jun 14, the applicant was considered but not selected for promotion by the Lieutenant Colonel (LAF) CSB. He was also informed that since this was his second non-selection, he would be involuntarily separated no later than 31 Dec 14. On 31 Dec 14, the applicant received an honorable discharge, and was credited with 13 years, 5 months, and 20 days of active service. According to Reserve Order PC-00969, dated 28 Apr 15, the applicant was appointed to the grade of Major (Maj, O-4) in the USAFR, effective 1 Jan 15. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial of the applicant’s request to realign his service dates for retirement eligibility. In accordance with AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, dated 1 Jul 99, the applicant’s TFCSD is based on the date of acceptance of his original commission. The applicant’s date of acceptance of original commission was 15 Aug 99. The applicant was called to EAD, effective 11 Jul 01. AFI 36-2604, Rule 11, states "if service date to be computed is EAD and the individual is a Reserve Officer, then this date includes the service from the date the member entered on a current tour of EAD.” As a reserve officer, the applicant’s EAD became effective 11 Jul 01 and being that he had no prior service, his TAFMSD and TFCSD was established as 11 Jul 01. AFI 36-2604, paragraph 7.5.1.2., required that the Service Verification Staff "credit ½ day for each day that the officer performed active-but not active duty--commissioned service in the grade in which he or she entered the ADL." Basically, the governance authorizes reserve officers to receive 50% grade credit from commission date to the day prior to EAD. As a result, the applicant’s Current Grade Date or Rank (CGDOR) was computed as 28 Jul 00, which includes the period 15 Aug 99 through 10 Jul 01 for a total credit of 11 months and 13 days. The complete DPSIPV evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be retired under TERA indicating, there is no error with the applicant's TAFMSD to offer TERA retirement since he did not have the minimum 15 years of service at the time of his mandatory separation date of 31 Dec 14. Title 10 USC § 8911, requires that an officer have 20 years TAFMS and not less than 10 years TAFCS to be eligible for retirement. Although the applicant had over 10 years TAFCS when he was discharged, he was not eligible for retirement because he did not have 20 years TAFMS. Public Law 102-484, 23 Oct 92, provided the SECDEF a temporary additional force management tool called the TERA. To be eligible to retire under TERA, a member who is approved for early retirement must be on active duty and complete 15 or more years of TAFMS upon the effective date of retirement. On 31 Dec 14, the applicant was discharged and had 13 years, 5 months and 20 days of TAFMS, making him ineligible for the TERA option. The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be considered for promotion and retention indicating, there is no error or injustice in the way he was considered for promotion or continuation. His request is no more unique than other officers who have a delay between their commissioning date and their EAD date or officers who have a break in service. Eligibility for promotion is based on Date of Rank (DOR), EAD and Date of Separation (DOS) and approved by the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF). The applicant's DOR to the grade of major was 1 Jun 09 making him eligible to meet the CY13A Lt Col CSB as an In-the-Promotion Zone (IPZ) eligible. The applicant met the CY14A Lt Col CSB as an Above-the-Promotion Zone (APZ) eligible and was non-selected a second time. Although all majors were eligible and considered for selective continuation to retirement eligibility, the continuation language was modified to instruct board members that, because of force reductions, they should not continue an officer who does not qualify for retirement within 4 years as of 31 Dec 14, or who does not have a critical skill. They were also advised that majors who will not qualify for retirement within 4 years and are not within a skill deemed critical by the Air Force, may be continued, but only if board members determine that continuation is clearly in the best interest of the Air Force. The applicant was not within 4 years of retirement eligibility and not in a critical skill. He was not selected for continuation and was given a mandatory DOS of 31 Dec 14. For those officers not selected for continuation who had 15 or more years of service but less than 18 years of service on active duty, the SECAF chose to offer them TERA. The applicant was not eligible for TERA as he did not have 15 years TAFMS as of 31 Dec 14. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 Jun 15 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 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 took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of this case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence that he was denied rights to which he was entitled or treated differently from others similarly situated, we find no 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 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-2014-03689 in Executive Session on 8 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 4 Feb 15, w/atchs. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 7 Apr 15. Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 11 May 15. Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jun 15.