AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

FEB 1 9  2999 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01102 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
He  be  qiven  3  waiirfi,-  of  the  six  months  retainability  to  be 
eligible for promotion 

to master sergeant  (MSgt) . 

- - -   - 

4 

. . - - L v L L  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

Then  the  actual  package 

The  Promotion  Enhancement  Program  (PEP) process  takes  several 
months  to  complete. 
The  initial  step  is  the  eligibility 
is  prepared  (December 
notification. 
1996) and the suspense date is 90 days  (February 1997) from the 
initial preparation of  the package.  The  selection board  meets 
the month  (March 1997) following the suspense date and makes the 
selection for promotions.  These promotions become effective the 
month  (April  1997)  after  the  selection  board  meets.  He  was 
ranked number one at the top of the list of technical sergeants 
for  promotion  to  MSgt  for  the  PEP  cycle  February  1997.  The 
effective date of the promotion would have been 1 April 1997.  He 
was  denied  this  promotion  due  to  not  having  six  months  of 
retainability  prior  to  his  high  year  tenure  (HYT)  date  of 
1 September 1997.  He believes that when someone performs their 
duties  exceptionally well,  they  should be  recognized  for their 
efforts, as well as being rewarded.  He has been recognized for 
his exceptional efforts and he would have been rewarded by being 
promoted through the PEP process.  However, the PEP promotion was 
not  allowed because of his HYT date.  After all  these years of 
service to commitment to duty, to his country, making sacrifices 
and  working  for his  opportunity  to  become  a  MSgt,  it  is  very 
unjust to be turned down because of the HYT rule.  The HYT rule 
is very  rigid.  There has only been  one waiver  to  the  rule  to 
exceed the 3 3   year maximum.  The retainability of six months for 
promotion under the PEP process is not  just.  Someone who meets 
all the criteria for PEP nomination and is selected could retire 
or separate the next day even though they may have more than six 
months on their enlistment.  The PEP promotion is based on merit. 
The  amount  of  time  in  the  cycle  from  start  to  finish  is 

c 

98- 01102 

approximately six months.  This means that a nomination for PEP, 
must be at least 12 months prior to separation.  As a deserving 
noncommissioned officer  (NCO) who was asked to use his leadership 
training  and  skills  to  transform  a  troubled  section  into  a 
cohesive unit, it is unjust that he should be denied a promotion. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A .  

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  enlisted  in  the  California  Army  National  Guard  on 
15 August 1964.  On 31 May 1972, he was honorably discharged. 
On  1  June  1972,  he  enlisted  in  the  United  States  Air  Force 
Reserve  (USAFR)  in the grade of  technical  sergeant  (TSgt).  He 
reenlisted  on  21  February  1974, 11  April  1976, 13  March  1 9 8 2 ,  
12 January 1986, and 8 December 1991 in the grade of TSgt. 
Applicant was nominated for promotion to the grade of MSgt under 
the PEP with an effective date f o r  promotion of 1 April 1997. 
Applicant had  a HYT date of  1 September 1997 which rendered him 
ineligible for promotion. 
In  accordance  with  AFI  36-2502,  individuals  projected  for 
separation, retirement, or reassignment within six months of the 
promotion date are ineligible for promotion. 
APR/EPR profile since 1984 reflects the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 
30 Apr 84 
21 Dec 84 
21 Dec 85 
21 Dec 86 
06 Feb 8 8  
23 Feb 91 
. . 

I_. - 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

9 
9 
9 
9 
5 9  (new rating system) 

On  1 September  1997,  applicant  retired  from  the  USAFR  in  the 
He  had  served  33  years  and  17  days  of 
grade  of  TSgt. 
satisfactory service. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief, Military  Personnel Division, AFRC/DPM, reviewed this 
application  and  states  that  after  a  thorough  review,  they 
recommend  member's  request  be  disapproved. 
Applicant  was 

2 

8 

98- 01102 

nominated for promotion under the PEP which is a board process.. 
During a quality review check, it was ascertained he did not have 
the  necessary  remaining  tenure  in  the  Reserve.  The  effective 
date for promotion under PEP was 1 April  1997.  The applicant's 
HYT date was 1 September 1997; therefore, he only had five months 
remaining  in  the  service  and  did  not  meet  the  necessary 
requirements.  To  approve such a  request would  not  be  fair to 
others  in  the  same  situation  or  be  good  for  the  Air  Force 
Reserve. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
On  3  August  1998,  a  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was 
forwarded  to  the  applicant  for  review  and  response  within  30 
days.  As  of  this date, no  response has been  received by  this 
off ice. 

I 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
3 .  
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice. 
Applicant's contentions are  duly noted;  however, we  agree with 
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt  their 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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  probable  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. 

3 

98- 01102 

The following members of the Board considered this application in, 
Executive Session on 12 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, 
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner  (without vote) 

111, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 April 1998, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C .   Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 10 July 1998. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 August 1998. 

Panel Chair 

4