RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02795 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reconsidered for continuation by the CY11A Lieutenant Colonel Continuation Board. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 1. His records did not reflect recent training, his impending Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) change, and his Permanent Change of Station (PCS) to the 607 AOC, Osan Airbase, Republic of Korea. He was passed over by the IPZ CY10 Lt Col Promotion Board and was not allowed to actively pursure working for the Guard or Reserve because he had an Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC). Now he is precluded from continuing his service with the Guard or Reserves; he is ineligible per AFI 36-2005, Table 2.2, Item 25. 2. He understood the instructions to the board recommended that additional consideration be given to majors within 5 years of retirement eligibility at the time of the board convening, which was in Mar 11. As a United States Air Force Academy graduate, he was excluded because his 15 year point did not arrive until May 11. However, by the time he received the CY11A board’s decision, he was within 5 years of retirement eligibility. At his current date of separation he will have 15 years and 6 months on active duty. 3. His records were incomplete at the time he met the CY11Aboard as he just completed the Air and Space Operations Center Initial Qualification Training and received “Honor Graduate” status upon graduation. His AFSC changed the month after the board convened. He received notification of his non-selection to be continued two months after he arrived to his new duty station in Korea. Also, his record did not reflect the fact that he had a 5-year commitment for accepting the ACIP bonus. In support of his request, the applicant provides documentation from his official personnel file. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was honorably discharged from the Regular Air Force in the grade of major (0-4) and was involuntarily discharged on 30 Nov 11. The applicant met the CY11A Lt Col Central Selection Board above- the-promotion zone (APZ) and was non-selected, which was his second non-selection. He met the CY11A Major Selective Continuation Board; however, he was not selected for continuation. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. Based on being over current end strength, the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) provided specific guidance to board members regarding selective continuation. Board members were advised that officers within 5 years of retirement eligibility as of the board convening date of 7 Mar 11 and those officers with critical skills should normally be considered. They were also advised that they could continue those not within 5 years or not in a critical skill if they determined that continuation was clearly in the best interests of the Air Force. In this case, the applicant was neither at the 15 year point nor was he in a critical skill approved by the SECAF. DPSOO reviewed the applicant’s record and determined his Duty AFSC is 11M4Y, which is not on the approved critical AFSC listing; therefore, would not have affected the outcome of the continuation board. Additionally, his training, PCS, nor his ADSC would have changed the outcome of the continuation board. Furthermore, his situation is no more unique than the other 150 plus officers who were not continued and must separate from the Air Force. DPSOO noted that they contacted the applicant and advised him that waivers are being processed by both Guard and Reserves to allow twice deferred officers to continue their service. The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responds by stating his original contentions; however, he explains: a. That after being deferred once, he was unable to voluntarily separate from the Air Force due to his ADSC. He believes that the injustice of this action lies in the fact that he was under the ACIP program due to the critical need for pilots and the program did not allow him to separate while being only once deferred, which forced him to stay on active duty for his APZ promotion board where the rate of promotion was 1-2 percent. b. Precedence in this matter is based on the force drawdown of the 1990s and shows that officers with at least 15 years of honorable service should not be subject to involuntary separation. For example, in Oct 04, the SECAF approved a continuation policy of continuing all twice-deferred majors with more than 14 years of total active federal military service (TAFMS) to a 20 year retirement. The Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) allowed for a 15 to 20 year retirement at a reduced rate. However, there was no additional voluntary separation opportunity for him after being once deferred due to his ACP commitment. c. The President of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) wrote to the SECAF to urge reconsideration of the non-continuation actions that were taken during the CY11A Lt Col Board. Further, the Secretary of Defense said, “We owe it to them (the volunteer military force) to do this right and to do it (budget cutting) responsibly.” d. He has served in two conflicts and is asking for additional consideration for an experienced veteran and his family who have sacrificed greatly to our nation. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the applicant’s contention that the force drawdown of the 1990s established a precedence that officers with at least 15 years of honorable service should not be subject to involuntary separation, it is beyond the purview of this Board to change legally constituted policy. The applicant has not shown that he has been treated any differently than other similarly situated officers in the instant timeframe. While his circumstance is regrettable, we cannot conclude he is the victim of error or injustice based on the evidence presented to us. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2011-02795 in Executive Session on 15 Mar 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 7 Sep 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Sep 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Oct 11. Panel Chair