RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04450

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her required commissioned service time be waived to 8 years.  

Her Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) be changed from 31 January 2016 to 31 August 2016 with a retirement date of 1 September 2016 to permit retirement as an officer.  

In the alternative, she be permitted to retire under the Temporary Early Retirement Authorization (TERA) effective 31 May 2016.   

In the alternative, her MSD be extended to 31 May 2018 to permit retirement as an officer with 10 years commissioned service time.  

Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, for the period ending 31 January 2016 be amended as follows:

Block b, Pay Grade, be amended to read “O3-E” instead of “O3.”

 	Item 13, Remarks, include the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM).  

	She be given the opportunity to sign Item 21a, Member’s Signature.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

There was an error with the CY15B Captain Medical Service Corps (MSC) Selective Continuation Board.  She should have been continued.  It is also unjust to involuntarily separate her after serving honorably for 19.5 years on active duty with almost 8 years of service as a commissioned officer.  She should have been continued to retirement in a sanctuary status.  

At the time of the board, she had over 18 years of total active service and 7 years commissioned service time.  AFPC would not provide details but it appears there was confusion regarding sanctuary status.  The verbiage which states that officers within four years of retirement are normally continued is referenced in the CY15B Captain MSC Selective Continuation Board announcement.   

She has nothing derogatory in her records and has never received any administrative action.  She should have been given the opportunity to apply for the TERA with waiver of her commissioned service time instead of a separation date.  The AFPC Retirements Section advised they submitted a request for TERA but that Air Staff denied the request; however, there is no proof of this.  The TERA for officers with 8 to 10 years of commissioned service was in effect in 2014 and 2015 and she has personal knowledge of members retiring under this program.  

According to 10 U.S.C. § 8911, the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) may at the officer’s request retire a regular commissioned officer who has at least 20 years of service and at least 10 years of service as a commissioned officer; however, this may be reduced to 8 years.  She was never given the opportunity for this waiver.  For members twice non-selected for promotion, 10 U.S.C. § 632a(2) states, “If he is eligible for retirement under any provision of law, be retired under that law on the date requested by him and approved by the Secretary concerned.”  However, she was never given the chance to request retirement.  It seems AFPC did not know what to do in her case as it is unusual.  They told her she was in sanctuary and would be given a retirement date to get the required time.  She requests either she be given a retirement date of 31 August 2016 which gives her 8 years commissioned service time and 20 years total service or be given a retirement date of 31 May 2018 which gives her 10 years commissioned service time and 21.5 years of total service.   

It is a grave injustice to be forced to separate after 19.5 years and then reenlist for six months in order to get a retirement.  She has an exceptional record and served on a forward surgical team in Afghanistan in 2011 as the only administrative member.  She understands that she was twice nonselected for promotion but earned the grade of captain and should be retired in the grade of captain.  

She was not afforded an opportunity to review her DD Form 214 before it became a matter of record.  She requests she be provided an opportunity to sign the DD Form 214.  

In a letter dated 23 February 2016, the applicant informed the AFBCMR that she separated as an officer on 31 January 2016 and reenlisted as a TSgt on 1 February 2016.  Because of High Year Tenure (HYT), she applied for retirement effective 1 September 2016.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 September 2016, the applicant retired in the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt, E-6).  

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 28 August 1996 and was discharged on 20 May 2009 in the grade of TSgt, with a narrative reason for separation of “Accept Commission or Warrant in Same Branch of Service.”  She served 11 years, 8 months and 23 days of active duty service this period.  

The applicant entered a subsequent period of active duty on 21 May 2008 and was released from active duty on 31 January 2016 in the grade of captain (O-3), with a narrative reason for separation of “Immediate Enlistment or Reenlistment.”  She served 7 years, 8 months and 10 days of active duty this period.

The applicant served a final period of active duty from 1 February 2016 through 31 August 2016 and retired in the grade of TSgt, with a narrative reason for separation of “Maximum Service or Time in Grade.”  She was credited with 7 months of active duty service this period.  She also served 19 years, 5 months and 3 days of prior active duty service.  Her DD Form 214 for this period reflects award of the AFGCM with three Oak Leaf Clusters (AFGCM w/3 BOLCs).

In accordance with AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, Table 4, Rule 53, if a member cannot sign the DD Form 214, for example if a member is on leave awaiting separation or if discharge in absentia has been authorized, “Member Not Available to Sign” is entered in block 21a.    

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 thru G.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SP defers to the Retirements and Separations Branch and provides the following for information only.  The applicant met the CY15B Major MSC Central Selection Board (CSB) which convened on 15 June 2015 as an above-the-zone (APZ) eligible and was nonselected for promotion.  The SecAF approved the convening package on 2 June 2015.  Based on the continuation eligibility, the applicant was coded as eligible for continuation as she was not within two years of retirement eligibility as an officer as of the MSD established by the board date of 31 January 2016 but was within 4 years of retirement eligibility as of the mandatory Date of Separation (DOS).  As of the mandatory DOS, she had 19 years, 5 months and 3 days of Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS) and 7 years, 8 months and 10 days of Total Active Federal Commissioned Service (TAFSC).  In order to be considered in the sanctuary, the applicant would have had to have 8 years of active commissioned service together with at least 18 years active military service as of the mandatory DOS.

Board members are instructed that officers who will qualify for retirement within 4 years as of the mandatory DOS shall normally be continued.  They are also instructed that they should normally not continue an officer with negative quality indicators documented in their record, or who will not qualify for retirement within four years as of the mandatory DOS, or who does not have a critical skill, unless it is clearly in the best interest of the Air Force to do so.  The board also has the discretion to recommend an officer not be continued who is within four years of retirement or who has one of the critical skills approved by the SecAF if it determines the officer’s record does not clearly justify continuation.  Although the applicant had no negative quality indicators in her record and was within four years of retirement eligibility as an officer, she was not selected for continuation.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM-SEP makes no recommendation and provides the following for information only.  The discharge to include the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, narrative reason for separation and character of service was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge instruction and was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  There was no evidence of an error or injustice in the discharge processing.

The applicant was not selected for promotion by the CY15B Major MSC CSB and the board decided not to select her for continuation and an MSD of 31 January 2016 was established based on the twice nonselection for promotion.  Since this was the second time she was not selected for promotion, she was informed that a mandatory discharge from the Air Force was required.  The applicant chose the option to resign in order to enlist in the Air Force instead of undergoing administrative discharge proceedings under AFI 36-3206, Administrative Discharge Procedures for Commissioned Officers.  The SecAF accepted the applicant’s resignation and she was released with an honorable discharge service characterization in order to enlist in the Air Force.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2STM-SEP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denial of the request for retirement instead of an involuntary separation as an officer due to the fact that she was not eligible at the time based on the MSD in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 632.

The applicant separated as a captain for being twice nonselected for promotion to the grade of major and reenlisted as a TSgt.  Her MSD was established as 31 January 2016 in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 632.  To retire as an officer under 10 U.S.C. § 8911, she must have had 10 years of active service as a commissioned officer; she had only 7 years, 8 months and 10 days of TAFSC.  By law, she was not eligible to remain on active duty as an officer.  The 8 years commissioned service waiver was a force management tool used at the discretion of the SecAF to reduce/manage the force.  There was no application process to request a waiver outside of an approved force management program, to include the TERA.  She may be advanced to the highest grade held when her active service plus her service on the retired list totals 30 years; however, the request is still pending with the SecAF.  

A complete copy of AFPC/DP2STM evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DP3SP states no action is required and award of the AFGCM is verified.  Her DD Form 214 dated 31 January 2016 covering her officer period does not reflect her award of the AFGCM w/2 BOLCs.  The OPR will need to determine if the AFGCM w/2 BOLCs will need to be updated on her DD Form 214, dated 31 January 2016 covering her officer period.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3SP evaluation is at Exhibit F.  

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the request for her DD Form 214 effective 31 January 2016 be amended to reflect her pay grade as “O3E” as noted on her Leave and Earnings Statement (LES).    AFI 36-3202 and governing DD Form 214 pre-separation guides state data for block 4b (Pay Grade) reflect the equivalent numerical rating for the grade shown in item 4a (Grade or Rank).  With the applicant being in the grade of captain, the designation is “O3.”  The Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) uses an “E” behind the pay grade for their purpose to designate an airman being prior service enlisted.  The prior service enlisted designation is not recorded on the DD Form 214 published for time served as an officer.  The applicant is in possession of a DD Form 214 that separately records her enlisted time from August 1996 to May 2008.  The system that generates a DD Form 214 does not capture but two digits for the numerical grade rating.  A review of her DD Form 214 accurately reflects her grade of “CPT” and pay grade of “O3.”  There is no evidence of an error.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit G.  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 6 September 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H).  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 to warrant granting any of the requested relief.  With respect to the applicant’s request for award of the AFGCM, we note her DD Form 214 for the period ending 31 August 2016, issued after she filed her AFBCMR application on 13 October 2015, reflects award of the AFGCM w/3 BOLCs; therefore it appears no further correction is required for award of the AFGCM.  With respect to the applicant’s request that she sign Item 21a of the DD Form 214, we note the Total Force Service Center (TFSC) located at Joint Base San Antonio–Randolph TX prepares all DD Forms 214 for Air Force personnel.  Therefore, it is our opinion the statement in item 21a “Member unavailable to sign” is correct and in accordance with Air Force instruction as she was not present at the TFSC to sign her DD Form 214.   With respect to the applicant’s requests for her commission service time be waived to 8 years, her MSD be changed to permit retirement as an officer, she be granted retirement as an officer under TERA or she be returned to active duty with an extension of her MSD to 31 May 2018; we are persuaded the preponderance of the evidence substantiates the applicant was not the victim of an error or injustice.  While the applicant’s situation is unfortunate, it appears the applicant’s separation as an officer as a result of her twice deferral for promotion to the grade of major and nonselection for continuation of service was in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of established Air Force directives and there was no error in the applicant’s discharge processing, resignation, reenlistment or retirement in the grade of TSgt.  Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not sustained her burden of proof that she has been the victim of an error or injustice.  

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-2015-04450 in Executive Session on 1 December 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 13 October 2015 and 
  19 February 2016, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 22 March 2016.
	Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM-SEP, dated 5 April 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 12 April 2016.
	Exhibit F.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3SP, dated 14 July 2016.
	Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 July 2016.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 September 2016.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.