RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00772

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be returned to active duty.

He be considered for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel (O-5).

He be reassigned on a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) back to his acquisitions career field.

Any other errors in his records discovered by the Board be corrected.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 2012, after spending four years at the National Geospatial Agency he became vulnerable for reassignment.  His primary career field is acquisitions, developmental engineering (62E), and he expected to PCS in his career field.  Instead, he was reassigned to an active duty Army Inspector General (IG) position with the National Guard.  

It was a big learning curve being out of his career field and to work in an organization and environment that he was not accustomed to.  By taking him out of his career field, he was disadvantaged compared to his peers, even though it is preached that career broadening is good.  He learned a good deal being in the IG and working with the National Guard; however, he did not get the same recognition or consideration being in the IG compared to being an acquisitions officer.  Additionally, records generated or presented by the National Guard to the Regular Air Force may be confusing.  He requests fair consideration of his record and the same opportunity as his peers in his career field to advance.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered the Regular Air Force on 20 December 2001 and was discharged on 30 April 2015 in the grade of major (O-4) with a narrative reason for separation of “Reduction in Force.”  He was credited with 13 years, four months and 11 days of active duty service.  

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits C, D and E.      

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPS2TM-SEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request that he be reinstated to active duty.  In accordance with PSDM 14-38, a Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) Reduction in Force (RIF) board was convened to evaluate eligible officers for continued retention.  The FY15 RIF board considered officers in the grade of captain (O-3) in year groups 2006 through 2008 and all majors in year groups 2001 through 2003.  In addition to grade and year groups, the criteria for eligible officers selected to meet the RIF board was also based on core Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC).  Special duty AFSCs were not considered for identification and were not a part of the criteria.  The applicant possessed one of the core AFSCs identified for consideration.  Officers not selected for retention by the RIF board would separate no later than 30 April 2015.  

The applicant contends he was placed at a disadvantage being in a special duty identifier while competing against members of his core AFSC.  The RIF board was responsible for reviewing the applicant’s entire record in accordance with established guidelines and procedures.  The applicant also had the opportunity to submit a letter to the board to address any circumstances and/or highlight any accomplishments in his record for the board to consider.  The board convened, the applicant was not selected for retention and was given a separation date of 30 April 2015.  DPS2TM-SEP found no evidence of any errors or injustices with the discharge processing.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPS2TM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2SP states if the applicant is reinstated to active duty, he would be entitled to a Special Selection Board (SSB).  The applicant was eligible to meet the Calendar Year 15A Lieutenant Colonel Line Central Selection Board which was convened on 2 March 2015.  However, on 25 November 2014, the applicant became ineligible to meet the board based on the results of the RIF board which established his 30 April 2015 Date of Separation (DOS).

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SP Evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2LA states the assignment team would assign the applicant to a core AFSC position should the Board elect to grant his request for reinstatement to active duty, which they do not recommend.

It would be a huge error to bring the applicant back to active duty as it would be unfair to others who were separated under the RIF.  The duty AFSC argument is not valid as the Air Force has thousands of officers serving in different duty AFSCs at any given time.  It would set a bad precedence to return him to service based on this argument.  Further, almost all acquisitions officers serve one or more career broadening tours and in fact career broadening is expected by the career field.  The fact that he career broadened did not place him at a disadvantage relative to his peers.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2LA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

He disagrees with the OPRs recommendations regarding retention.  Their discussion is based on PSDM 14-38.  He read through the document and nowhere is core AFSC mentioned as the required eligibility for RIF.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.

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, to include his response to the Air Force evaluations, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force OPRs and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not sustained his burden of proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

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-2015-00772 in Executive Session on 2 June 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 May 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPS2TM-SEP, dated 8 February 
			  2016.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 18 March 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2LA, dated 24 March 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 27 April 2016
	Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 May 2016.