FY94 SELECTIVE EARLY RETIREMENT BOARD
Please press Reload or Refresh for latest updates.
If this page caught in someone else's frames, click here, to break out.

For latest bulletins, go here: Update Page.

Intro

On December 22, 1999 a lawsuit was filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims on behalf of Colonel (Ret) Ronald Alvin and six other affected officers against the United States, alleging that the Air Force Fiscal Year 1994 Selective Early Retirement Board denied to the Air Force officers considered by that Board their constitutional right to equal opportunity for retention on active duty. [Complaint] The Equal Opportunity Instruction required the FY 94 SERB members to give special retention consideration to minorities and women. The instruction required a written numerical report to the Secretary of the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force concerning the performance of this task. The instruction and report are the bases for the lawsuit. [Instructions]

The case was filed as a class action lawsuit in order to protect the rights of all officers selected for involuntary retirement by the FY 94 SERB. Most of the officers selected by this Board separated from active duty on December 31, 1993. The Statute of Limitations to bring an action against the United States pertaining to this matter is six years from date of separation. However, the effect of the class action filing is to stop the Statute of Limitations from running for all officers who retired within six years of the date of the filing of the lawsuit. For those who retired more than six years before the lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Limitations may preclude their participation in the lawsuit unless there is a basis to toll the Statute from running. [10 U.S.C. § 2501]

Plaintiffs' counsel, COL (Ret) Barry P. Steinberg, Washington, D.C., Attorney of Record for Plaintiffs and COL (Ret) William A. Aileo, Of Counsel, are counsel for the named plaintiffs.

The issue involving the affirmative action instruction given to the SERB Board has been raised in other courts. Each of the military services has given some form of this instruction since the early 1990's. It has been challenged several times and in each instance, the cases were settled before there was a final resolution of the constitutionality of the instruction. The leading case in this matter, Baker v. United States, resulted in a written opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [Baker] There is presently pending in the Court of Federal Claims a similar suit, Berkley v. United States, involving the Air Force FY 92 Reduction in Force Board. [Berkley]

This web site will be maintained with links to relevant information and new developments as they arise. It will also be a means to post pleadings and orders as they are submitted by counsel and issued by the trial judge. This web site is designed to keep plaintiffs informed as the litigation progresses. The information posted will be accessible to the public and this web site is not encrypted or otherwise restricted. Therefore, plaintiffs should be aware that attorney-client privileged information cannot be protected on this site and no information which is privileged or confidential should be communicated through this web site.

Links:

---

Updated: 6/22/05