RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05311 

 						COUNSEL:  NONE

 						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His waiver for an extension of his Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) be approved.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He requests the decision to deny his MSD based on over manning be reviewed and he be reinstated.  The squadron optometry section has been manned by as many as five optometrists (250 percent) with a workload of 45 patients.  There has been an increase of patients and the current staff of three optometrists see 85-105 patients, and up to 150 during high tempo periods, per Unit Training Assembly (UTA), with two UTAs per month.  

He provides a copy of his MSD package which was approved by his squadron, group, wing and Numbered Air Force (NAF) commanders but was denied by the Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC).  The AFRC Commander denied his MSD waiver based on manning overages at March ARB, CA.  If that is the case, he asks why the March ARB Optometry is still currently allowed to be staffed at 150 percent.   They have been functioning with three optometrists (150 percent manned) for 11 years.  In addition to serving as the Chief, Optometry Services, he also served as the Awards and Decorations Officer in Charge (OIC), Medical Readiness Officer, Director of Education and Training, OIC of Organizational Performance, Unit Historian and International Health Specialist.   

The unique structure of March ARB and given there are no full-time clinic/treatment provider staff during the week requires two optometrists to be available for each UTA in order to accomplish the assigned mission from AFRC.  The three optometrist format was deceiving in that one was performing on both UTAs each month to allow for completion of the mission.  The consistent heavy workload is why it took 10 years to find another optometrist even though there was a minimum of 20 potential nominees during the time.  

During the last six years when they were at 150 percent manning, one optometrist received three MSD extensions without issues and justifiably so for the mission reasons listed.  The acquisition of two optometrists was to replace an optometrist who was reassigned and to replace an optometrist who reached mandatory age limit (68 years of age) in October 2016.  The plan allowed for the retention of three optometrists.  With the retirement of an optometrist and his departure, only two optometrists will remain and neither can attend two UTAs per month to support the mission requirement.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 October 2015, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force Reserve in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5).  

In a letter dated 24 November 2014, ARPC/DPTTS informed the applicant that his MSD expired on 31 October 2015 and in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 14509, he was required to leave active status on the last day of the month in which he became 62 years of age.  The applicant was further advised that since he did not qualify for transfer to the Retired Reserve, he would be discharged.  The letter further stated as an officer in a medical specialty he may be eligible to apply for a waiver of maximum service retention under 10 U.S.C. § 14703.  The applicant was further advised he could submit a waiver of his MSD through his chain of command at least 180 days before but not later than 90 days before his MSD.  

On 6 January 2015, the applicant submitted a waiver of his MSD for maximum age restriction to 31 October 2017 per 10 U.S.C. § 14703.  

On 10 September 2015, AFRC/CC recommended disapproval of the applicant’s request his MSD be extended from 31 October 2015 to 31 October 2017.  The basis for the recommendation was AFRC-wide manning of his Air Force Specialty (AFS) was 120 percent.  There was no operational requirement to retain the applicant as his unit was currently manned at 150 percent.  The recommendation of disapproval was stated to be in the best interest of the Air Force and the Air Force Reserve.

On 15 October 2015, the Secretary of the Air Force disapproved the MSD waiver.  

Per Reserve Order CB-007 dated 4 November 2015, the applicant was discharged from the Air Force Reserve effective 31 October 2015.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MRBP recommends denial.  The applicant’s records, supporting documents and his SAFPC case requesting a MSD extension were reviewed.  The board unanimously disapproved the applicant’s request based on the recommendation of the AFRC/CC stating there was no operational requirement to retain the applicant.  The board also based their decision on manning levels.  The decision was in the best interest of the Air Force.    

A complete copy of the SAF/MRBP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The operational requirements for the March ARB Optometry Section and its ability to complete the mission is either being misinterpreted or misrepresented.  The average number of patients seen per month was 128 as March ARB continues to support two UTAs per month with full clinic staff for physicals, immunizations, laboratory, dental and other services.

He polled many Reserve and ANG optometrists and the general consensus is that a single optometrist employed as part of the physical process can handle 35 patients on a UTA.  The current optometrists are not available for two UTAs each month due to their practice and family obligations and they are also not available for short notice deployment demands.  No single optometrist can fulfill the mission requirements each month, year after year.

He fully expected to have his MSD approved as his direct chain of command approved his request and he met all of the requirements.  The issue and reason expressed by the AFRC Surgeon General and the AFRC/CC for denying his waiver does not seem to relate to the statistical data that was available for review.

Whether or not his appeal is approved, his intention was to bring to light the operational deficiency that will now be placed on the clinic and the need for a policy review of the MSD process.  Approval of candidates for retention should be left at the tactical/functional level where the needs to meet mission demands are better known.  Otherwise, qualified and experienced personnel will be relieved of duty with no regard to impact and the Air Force will lose vital knowledge and experience.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, 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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  While it is unfortunate the applicant was discharged prior to reaching satisfactory service for placement on the Retired Reserve List, we note the preponderance of the evidence substantiates the applicant’s waiver of his MSD under 10 U.S.C. 14703 was properly considered in accordance with established directives and disapproved based on over manning in his Air Force Specialty.  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-2015-05311 in Executive Session on 6 April 2017 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	 , Panel Chair
	 , Member
	 , Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-05311 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 November 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, SAF/MRBP, undated, w/atch.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 June 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 July 2016.