RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04813 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His promotion to chief master sergeant, with a date of rank of 1 March 2013, be reinstated. 2. As an alternative, he be provided an explanation as to why he is being held to a standard of eligibility for promotion that is not within Air Force Reserve Component Command enlisted promotion policy. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) enlisted promotion and demotion policy was folded into an active duty Air Force publication AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, 31 December 2009. In doing so, AFRC A1 and A1K failed to identify the preamble found on page one, sentence two, which restricts this application of policy to the Air National Guard (ANG) or Reserve. He was told the former Chief of Air Force Reserve provided an e-mail which authorized continued use of the previous instructions governing Air Force Reserve Command enlisted promotion and demotion policy, until the policy could be corrected. The Chief of the AF Reserves has the authority to countermand Air Force policy instruction. Adding more credence to the question is the fact the Air Force Reserve Command Judge Advocate created a field instruction, which echoes the same direction the AFRC previously used in the e-mail previously mentioned. Specifically, until the current AFI on enlisted promotions and demotions is corrected, enlisted promotion policy defaults to the two superseded publications identified above. There is no reference to a required Reserve Service Commitment (RSC) anywhere in the superseded AFI 36-2502, 6 August 2002. There is a good explanation for that. The Reserve service commitment did not come into existence until 2004 when AFRCI 36- 2102 was published. Even though AFRC agreed to fold their enlisted promotion policy into AFI 36-2502, in spite of their overlooking the exclusion of the preamble, you will find no reference to a requisite Reserve commitment associated with promotion criteria. This is in contrast to active duty promotion policy contained in the same AFI. On 1 March 2013, shortly after his promotion to chief master sergeant his high year tenure (HYT) came into question. He contacted AFRC in an attempt to attain a RSC of two years, which is required for promotion to chief master sergeant. Due to his HYT falling 5 months short of the requisite two year service commitment, he was told he would have to request a waiver. He was also advised that he should not have been promoted. The HYT waiver was submitted on his behalf. It was subsequently denied and as a result, his promotion order to chief master sergeant was revoked. His grade reverted back to senior master sergeant with his former rank of 1 November 2008. During his entire career, he has followed policy and procedures. He takes great pride in his service record and performance history. He has no doubt that he earned the promotion to chief master sergeant. He did not know about the oversight concerning the RSC or he would have questioned it in advance of the promotion. Since he does not meet the criteria for a HYT waiver, he believes an exception to policy on the service commitment would have been warranted. A waiver of 5 months is a small sacrifice from the command he has served faithfully for so many years. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was a member of the Air Force Reserves and retired effective 1 September 2014. The Air Force Reserve component limits participation to a total of 33 years creditable service, based upon established pay date or age 60, whichever occurs first. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial. Air Force Reserve enlisted members are promoted to chief master sergeant in accordance with AFPD 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotions and Air Force Reserve Enlisted Promotion Policy. Under the provisions of the Air Force Reserve Enlisted Promotion Policy, individuals must have: 9-skill level in their primary Air Force Specialty Code, 24- months’ time in grade, 14 years of satisfactory service for retirement, completed the SNCO Academy, completed the AF Reserve Chief Orientation Course, a satisfactory participant in accordance with AFI 36-2254V1, Reserve Personnel Participation, met Air Force physical fitness standards and be able to obtain 24 months retainability to be eligible for promotion to chief master sergeant. The individual must be recommended by the assigned supervisor and approved by the promotion authority. The applicant has not provided documentation to substantiate he should be reinstated to the rank of chief master sergeant. He did not and could not obtain the 24 months retainability, a minimum requirement for promotion to chief master sergeant. The applicant contends the AFRC Enlisted Policy is invalid. Contrary to his contention, since 31 December 2009, the Air Force Reserve enlisted promotion has been executed in accordance with AFPD 36-25. AFI 33-360, Publications and Forms Management states, if no departmental-level guidance is provided, command field units may issue command/field instructions to directly implement AFPDs and Air Force supplements to Department of Defense Directives. Based on this allowance, the AFRC commander issued verbal instructions to directly implement AFPC 36-25 and ordered AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, dated 6 August 2002, be used a procedural guidance to implement the Air Force Reserve Enlisted Promotion Policy. The applicant’s promotion to chief master sergeant was a command policy violation as he did not have, and still is unable to obtain the required 24 months retainability due to his high year tenure of 1 September 2014. On 1 March 2013, the applicant’s unit erroneously promoted him to chief master sergeant. The HYT denotes the maximum number of years a member may serve in the Air Force Reserves before he or she must retire. In order for him to meet the criteria eligibility for a 1 March 2013 promotion, his HYT date had to have been 1 March 2015 or later. The requirement to obtain 24 months retainability must be met, thus there is no option for an Air Force Service Commitment waiver. In the interest of fairness and equity to all meeting the minimum requirements for promotion eligibility, his promotion to chief master sergeant was revoked. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While AFI 33-360 does give AFRC/CC the authority to supplement directives, it also gives specific directions on how this must be accomplished. These instructions were not included in the advisory from A1K. He has copied the instructions for the Board’s review. Additionally, he contends the instructions are only good for a limited time. It is clear that on the day he was promoted, there was not an official promotion policy. AFI 33-360 clearly states the proper process for supplementation for an AFI, which does not include verbal instructions. Over his entire career, he has upheld the Air Force core values and has heard the phrase “we take care of our Airmen.” This was the opportunity for the AFRC to show those words have meaning. They have failed. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal, we are not persuaded he is entitled to reinstatement to chief master sergeant. His contentions are duly noted; however, he has not provided persuasive evidence to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant was unable to obtain retainability of 24 months as required for promotion to chief master sergeant. While the impact of the retainability requirement may be regrettable, we do not find the actions taken serve to make the applicant a victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 an 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-2013-04813 in Executive Session on 12 June 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record Excerpts. Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 25 Nov 13. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 14. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Response, 20 May 2014, w/atch.