DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC
Office of the Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR 97-03128
AUG I4 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States
Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured
compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the
decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records
is announced, and it is directed that:
The pertinen
Force relating to
show that:
nt of the Air
be corrected to
a. The AF Form 964, PCS, TDY or Training Declination
Statement, dated 10 June 1997, be, and hereby is, declared void and
removed from his records.
b. He was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5),
effective and with a date of rank of 1 September 1997.
c. On 23 October 1997, he was ordered permanent change of
station (PCS) to his home of record (home of selection) pending
further orders.
d. On 24 October 1997, he reenlisted in the Regular Air
Force for a period of 4 years. )iki&-p$T
Chief xamine
V Air Force Board for Correction
of Military Records
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON, DC
Office of the Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR 9 7 - 0 3 1 2 8
MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR
SUBJECT:
Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an
injustice.
36- 2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in
the accompanying Memorandum for the Chief of Staff signed by the
Executive Director of the Board or his designee.
Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI
B'anel Chaid
Attachments:
1. Ltr, AFPC/DPAPPl, dtd Jun 15, 1998,
w/Atchs
2. Ltr, AFPC/DPPPWB, dtd Jun 22, 1998
3 . Ltr, AFPC/DPPRS, dtd Jul 16, 1998
15June1998
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPAPPl
550 C Street West, Ste 32
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4734
SUBJECT:
rds (D
Requested Action: The applicant is requesting the AF Form 964 (PCS, TDY or Training
Declination Statement) removed from his personnel record.
AF Fo
for a PCS to the CONUS.
erroneously completed a
efused to get reatinability
Background: See attached case. Note: This advisory only applies to the portion of the
BCMR that request the removal of the AF Form 964.
Facts: The AF Form 964 signed on 10 June 1997 bv the SuDerintendent of Personnel
was High Year Tenure
Relocation’s Element at
(HYT) restricted therefore, he was ineligiae to extend to meet the retainability requirements for
a PCS. Table 3, Note 5 and Paragraph 4.3.3.1, AFI 36-21 10 (Assignments) advises MPFs not
to require personnel to sign an AF Form 964 when their HYT restricts them of obtaining
retainability for a PCS move.
was in error-
U
.
1
Recommendation: Remove AF Form 964 from applicant’s personnel record..
WILLIAMB. WARD
Assignment Advisor
Directorate of Assignments
D E P A R T M E N T O F T H E AIR FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS
7 ?
IIlV 1998
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPPwB
550 C Street West, Ste 09
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 1 1
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records
Requested Action. The applicant is requesting the AF Form 964 (PCS, TDY, or Training
Declination Statement) be removed from his Personnel Record, promotion to SSgt effective 1
g into the Accounting and Finance career field with assignment to
We will address the issue concerning promotion to SSgt.
Reason for Request. The applicant states personnel at the Military Personnel Flight
erroneously completed an AF Form 964 and updated this data
(MPF) at
which indichted he refbsed to get retainability for a PCS to the CONUS. This action rendered the
applicant ineligible for both promotion and reenlistment.
Facts. A career airman who declines to extend or reenlist to obtain service retainability
for a controlled duty assignment, PCS, TDY, or retraining, is automatically ineligible for
promotion in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1 , Rule F (copy attached). An AF Form 964
was accomplished on the applicant on 10 Jun 97 which identified him as ineligible for promotion
consideration to SSgt. AFPC/DPAPPl Memorandum, 15 Jun 98, states AF Form 964 was
erroneous and should not have been completed. On 13 Aug 97, the applicant’s servicing MPF at
requested the Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch at AFPC consider
promotion to SSgt as the ineligible for promotion condition, as a result of the AF
Form 964, was erroneous. His promotion record was again activated as a result of this request
and he was selected for SSgt supplementally on 5 Sep 97 with Promotion Sequence Number
(PSN) 00588.9 which was effective 1 Sep 97. The applicant was honorably discharged on 23
Oct 97 upon completion of required active service.
Discussion. There appears to be much confusion and miscommunication concerning the
applicant’s grade. Again, he was selected for promotion to SSgt supplementally on 5 Sep 97
based on a request from his servicing MPF. He received a Promotion Sequence Number (PSN)
that was effective 1 Sep 97. His losing MP
through the Personnel Data System (PDS).
was advised of his selection
hted Airman Promotion
was produced 10 Sep 97
5 Sep 97 for separation processing. He a
ersonnel on 10 Sep 97, based on a message fro
, that
informed by
he was selected for promotion to SSgt. Further, he states that he visited the Air Force Personnel
Center (AFPC) on 12 Sep 97 where he was “promoted” to SSgt in an impromptu ceremony. We
are unaware of any such ceremony. The applicant’s separation order reflects his grade as SrA
Discharge fiom Active Duty, shows his
(E-4) while his DD Form 214, Certific
personnel to determine if promotion
grade as SSgt (E-5). We have contact
orders were published prior to his separation and to clarify what information was given to
member regarding his promotion and “mandatory” separation. There is no record of a promotion
order being published nor anyone who was familiar with the situation at the time. We have
verified his promotion selectee data from h s Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and see no
reason why he would not have been recommended for promotion.
Recommendation. Recommend the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect that he was
promoted to staff sergeant effective and with DOR of 1 Sep 97.
Chief InquiriedAFBCMR Section
Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Br
. , * ’
D E P A R T M E N T O F THE A I R FORCE
HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R
R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS
MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRS
550 C Street West Ste 11
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 13
Reauested Action. The applicant is requesting the AF Form 964 (Declination Statement) be
removed from his record, be promoted to grade of SSgt and allowed to return to active duty.
Recommendation. Approval. The Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) for the AF Form
964 has determined that the AF Form 964 was completed in error, we therefore, recommend
AFBCMR direct that applicant’s records be corrected to indicated that he was not released from
active duty and discharged on 23 Oct 97. Applicant has submitted a timely request.
y & c b H r
OHN C. WOOTEN, DAF
Military Personnel Mgmt Spec
Separations Branch
Dir of Personnel Program Management
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01747
In a 15 Nov 02 letter to the applicant, the Superintendent of the --rd Wing IG with the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) advised that, following an interview, the briefer denied having the conversation with the applicant and asserted she had briefed countless individuals regarding declination statements and was well aware of the ramifications. The handout directed him to the MPF for counsel if his desire was to separate. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00741
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAAD indicated that AFI 36-2110, Paragraph 2.29.6.3, requires a member who refuses to get PCS retainability to sign an AF Form 964 (PCS, TDY, or Training Declination Statement). The applicant executed the AF Form 964 and the assignment was cancelled and his promotion line number was taken away. The applicant stated that his MPF failed to inform him that he would lose his promotion line number to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03872
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C and F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of his request for promotion reinstatement indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
We note that applicant's records have now been corrected to reflect his correct duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC), and duty titles during the contested time period; therefore, the only issue for this Board to decide is promotion consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB). Therefore, we recommend his corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board for the CY97C board. There is no evidence any steps were taken to make a correction to the DAFSC or duty title from the...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, AFBCMR Appeals and SSB Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, states that the previous and subsequent EPRs that applicant submits are not germane to this appeal. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states, in summary, that the statements he submitted all agree that the contested report was not written accurately and did not include specific...
A five-year ADSC? and applicant is not. Training ADSCs ............................................................................................................................................... 1.8.
This generated a training allocation notification R I T , which clearly indicated a three-year RDSC would be incurred, and applicant was required to initial the following statements on the RIP, I I I accept training and will obtain the required retainability" and ''1 understand upon completion of this training I will incur the following active duty service commitments (ADSC) ' I . Although documentation of counseling does not exist and applicant denies that it occurred, they believe it's a...
Providing the applicant 3 97-02979 I is otherwise eligible (receives an EPR that is not referral or rated a a 2 1 1 or less), the first time the contested report will be considered in the promotion process (provided it is not voided) is cycle 9837 to master sergeant. The author notes there is no comment on the EPR regarding the LOR or the reason he received the LOR. The applicant still has not included any evidence to support his’contention that his commander did not consider all matters...
On 18 July 2000, she was informed that AFPC/DPAAD2 approved her request to withdraw the PCS declination statement and that she would not be able to test out of cycle because her package was not submitted in time. The applicant states that she turned down an assignment but was approved to stay in and believes she would have been approved before the cut off date for testing if her package had not been lost and resubmitted. After the commander disapproved her package, the FSO received the...
Attachment: Ltr, AFPClDPPPW, dtd 15 Sep 98 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, D. C. NOV 19 1998 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 98-01940 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code, Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records is announced, and it is directed that: The pertinent military...