RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-01673

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE
	
	HEARING REQUESTED: YES

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

She receive a 3-year time in grade (TIG) allowing her to retire in the grade of O-6.  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

She was unjustly and unnecessarily removed from the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) program 1  year prior to obtaining 3-years TIG as an O-6, and despite the AGR Continuation Board (ACB) approving her AGR orders through 31 May 21.  An inappropriate “out-of-cycle” state Senior Officer Advancement Recommendation (SOAR 1) board determined her involuntary release from the AGR program.  Additionally, many of the involuntary separation actions taken by senior officers and the state Human Resource Office (HRO) were not in accordance with ANGI 36-101, Air National guard Active Guard Reserve (AGR) Program.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a retired Air Reserve lieutenant colonel (O-5).

On 9 Feb 18, via Special Order Number AP-37, Federal recognition was extended to the applicant, promoting her to O-6, with a date of rank (DOR) effective 8 Feb 18.

According to documentation submitted by the applicant:

On 27 Jun 18, Special Order A-X000095 extended the applicant’s participation in the AGR program for the period 1 Jun 19 – 31 May 20.  

On 10 Jan 2019, the applicant was notified that on or around 1 May 19, the CY 2020 AGR ACB would review any Airman with an AGR tour end date in CY 2020 and/or for continuation beyond 20 years of total active federal military service,  The review would determine continuation within the AGR program.  An ACB decision to grant an extension or continuation of an AGR Airman is in the AGR Program, not for a specific assignment.  Continuation is dependent on continued performance, career progression, needs of the unit, State, ANG and career field requirements.  

On 4 Mar 19, the applicant’s Wing Commander concurred with her supervisor’s recommendation to the Calendar Year (CY) 2020 ANG ACB that she be extended beyond 20 years active service for 2 years (MNANG AGR ACB Worksheet).  

On 21 Nov 19, she was notified by Joint Force Headquarters, Office of the Adjutant General, a force management decision was made to allocate the O-6 AGR Controlled Grade she currently held elsewhere within the organization.  This notification was her official 90-day notice of her involuntary release from AGR Service no later than  29 Feb 20.  Additionally, the notification advised her she had over 20 years of Active Federal Service and was eligible for a regular retirement.  She had seven days from the notification to elect to retire or defer retirement and remain in a traditional Drill Status Guardsman status.  

On 3 Dec 19, Special Order A-X000064, modified to delete Special Order A-X000095, revising the applicant’s continuation in the AGR program from 1 Jun 19 – 29 Feb 20.  

On 25 Feb 20, the Senior Official Inquiries Directorate (SAF/IGS) within the Air Force Inspector General’s Office, informed the applicant they were dismissing her 19 Jan 20 complaint concerning allegations of reprisal, discrimination, and hostile work environment, for insufficient evidence of wrongdoing and an inadequate basis to warrant further investigation.  They found her release from the AGR program was based upon mission-critical personnel requirements and was not an act of reprisal.  Also, they found no evidence to support her allegations of gender discrimination or hostile work environment.  

On 29 Feb 20, the applicant was honorably discharged, and transferred to the USAF Retired List on 1 Mar 20.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

Title 10 United States Code,  Section 1370 (10 U.S.C § 1370).  Commissioned officers: general rule; exceptions: In order to be credited with satisfactory service in an officer grade above major, that member must have served satisfactorily in that grade (as determined by the Secretary of the military department concerned) as a reserve commissioned officer in an active status, or in a retired status on active duty, for not less than three years.  

AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements.  When authorized by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force or delegee may approve retirement of an officer above the grade of major who does not meet the 3-year TIG criteria if the officer has satisfactorily served, as determined by the Secretary of the Air Force or delegee, a minimum of 2 years TIG while on active duty for active duty retirements or during creditable service for Air Reserve Component members retiring under 10 U.S.C § 12371.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

NGB/A1PP recommends denying the application.  The applicant contends she was involuntarily separated from her AGR tour prior to reaching 3 years TIG as an O-6, while serving in an outstanding manner.  Her control grade of O-6 was removed from the state and her AGR position was downgraded to lieutenant colonel (O-5).  She submitted an IG complaint in response to her curtailment, which was dismissed for insufficient evidence indicating wrongdoing and an inadequate basis to warrant further investigation.  The applicant elected to retire rather than defer retirement and remain in a traditional Drill Status Guardsman (DSG) status.  

In accordance with AFI 36-3203, the TIG requirement is reduced to 6 months if the officer is involuntarily separated from active status due to age or years of service.  The applicant was not involuntarily separated; she voluntarily retired from the ANG.  Additionally, she was not retired due to age.  The 6-month rule and the AGR curtailment do not apply and are not included in 10 U.S.C § 12731(b), Age and service requirements (retired pay application).  In accordance with 10 U.S.C §  1370(a) for active duty retirements, and 10 U.S.C §  1370(d) for reserve retirements, officers in grades above O-4 wishing to voluntarily retire in their officer grade must serve 3 years TIG or retire in the next lower grade.  TIG waivers are employed by the Air Force as a force management tool, eligibility and processing criteria will be in accordance with the applicable force management guidance administered by AF/A1 or AF/RE, respectively.  In the absence of force management guidance in accordance with AFI 36-3203, Rule 1.a. and 1.b., TIG waiver shall be processed for SAF Personnel Council consideration, under a “best interest of the Air Force” standard.  Since the applicant retired prior to submitting the TIG waiver request, the force management guidance may not apply.  Waiver of the TIG requirement is at the discretion of the Secretary of the Air Force or designee.  

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 20 Jul 20 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 13 Aug 20.  In her response, the applicant contends the NGB/A1PP opinion and understanding of what is being asked from her request based on what was done is clearly misunderstood and limited.  She refutes the opinion she had the opportunity to continue serving and reach her 3 years TIG; she had no choice but retirement.  Opining the AGR Control Grade of O-6 was removed from the state is inaccurate, as the position she held and served in was never downgraded to O-5, in fact the NGB provided an additional O-6 Control Grade where mission requirements dictated.  Lastly, given 7 days’ notice of involuntary separation and retirement, there was not adequate time to submit a TIG waiver in accordance with force management guidance; that is why the SAF/MR Guard Advisor and SAF/IG encouraged her to submit her TIG waiver request to the Board.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of NGB/A1PP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Additionally, regarding the applicant’s contention she was unjustly and unnecessarily removed from the AGR program; after reviewing her allegations, SAF/IGS with the concurrence of the Department of Defense Inspector General, found her release from the AGR program was based upon mission-critical personnel requirements and was not an act of reprisal.  They determined the senior leaders involved acted in accordance with applicable guidance and within their discretion.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2020-01673 in Executive Session on 28 Jan 21:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 27 Feb 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, NGB/A1PP, dated 17 Jul 20.
Exhibit D:	Notification of advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 20 Jul 20.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s response, dated 13 Aug 20.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings pertaining to Docket Number BC-2020-01673, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.