RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00221
            INDEX NUMBER:  100.07, 112.02

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His promotion to the grade of staff sergeant be reinstated retroactive
to 1 July 1998, and, that he be allowed to  reenlist  in  his  current
career field as a 2FOX1 (Fuel Specialist).

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  unjustly  selected  and  improperly  processed  through   the
retraining program.  More importantly, he should  not  have  lost  his
promotion to staff sergeant due to his declining retraining.   He  was
told that by signing the form  declining  retraining  he  would  still
receive his promotion to staff sergeant but wouldn’t be able  to  test
under future promotion cycles.

Applicant’s complete statement and documentary evidence  submitted  in
support of his appeal are at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular  Air  Force
on 26 August 1992.  He reenlisted on 29 September 1995 for a period of
four years and has an established date of separation of  28  September
1999.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade  of  senior
airman in Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 2F051  (Fuels  Automation  &
Account Technician).

The record reflects that the applicant  has  received  seven  Enlisted
Performance Reports, all reflecting promotion recommendations of “5.”

On 11 May 1998, applicant signed AF Form 964 (PCS,  TDY,  or  Training
Declination  Statement)  declining  training  in  course  L3AQR2A332A,
Electronic Principles.

AFPC/DPPPWB stated that the applicant  was  tentatively  selected  for
promotion to staff sergeant during cycle 97E5 per  Promotion  Sequence
Number (PSN) 08577.0 which would have been incremented on 1 July 1998.
 The applicant signed AF Form 964 on 11 May 1998, which  rendered  him
ineligible for promotion consideration.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Skills Management Branch, AFPC/DPPAE,  reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial of  applicant’s  request.   DPPAE  stated  that
after consulting with the applicant’s  major  command  (MAJCOM),  they
were advised he was repeatedly notified of  Phase  III  selection  for
retraining in February 1998, along with all other  personnel  selected
to be involuntarily retrained.  However, in the applicant’s  case,  he
refused to comply with the instructions of  immediately  submitting  a
retraining application until 1 April 1998,  almost  two  months  after
being notified of the retraining action.

During the  involuntary  retraining  selection  phase,  personnel  are
allowed to submit available AFSC choices; however, the final  decision
is based  on  the  needs  of  the  Air  Force  as  determined  by  the
Headquarters Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC).  Review  of  the  AFPC
files indicate the applicant’s selection for retraining was  based  on
the same criteria as  applied  to  others  in  his  career  field  and
throughout the Air Force.  As such, there was no error or injustice in
applicant’s selection for involuntary retraining into AFSC 2A3X2C.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The  Enlisted  Promotion  &  Military  Testing  Branch,   AFPC/DPPPWB,
recommended denial of  applicant’s  request  based  on  the  rationale
provided.  DPPPWB stated that if on or after the Promotion Eligibility
Cutoff Date (PECD) for a particular cycle a career airman declines  to
extend or reenlist to obtain service retainability  for  a  controlled
assignment, PCS, TDY, and retraining, he/she  becomes  ineligible  for
promotion consideration as outlined in AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, Line F.
 The applicant did not provide a  statement  from  the  individual  he
claims provided him erroneous information.  On 11 May 1998, he  signed
an AF Form 964 acknowledging full understanding that if he declined to
retrain he would be ineligible for promotion.

While the applicant  claims  that  he  was  not  fully  aware  of  the
implication of declining the retraining,  the  AF  Form  964  that  he
signed on 11 May 1998, clearly indicates in Part II that  this  action
renders him ineligible for promotion consideration for  the  remainder
of his enlistment including any extension already approved.  When  the
member signs this form  he/she  acknowledges  the  loss  of  promotion
eligibility, has read the rules  in  the  applicable  directives,  and
finally, the form is not to be signed without a complete understanding
of its effect on one’s career.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant stated that he was  unable  to  get  a  statement  from  the
individual who counseled him.  He reiterated his contentions  that  he
questioned whether or not he would still receive  his  promotion.   He
believed what the military personnel flight (MPF) counselor told  him,
that he would still receive his promotion.   Had  he  known  the  true
repercussions  at  that  time  he  would  have  not  signed  it   [the
declination statement] and taken different actions.

As far as being notified repeatedly of his selection  for  Phase  III,
applicant stated he was  never  given  official  notification  of  his
selection.  He was told only through  e-mail  from  his  home  station
superintendent.  He  did  not  refuse  to  comply  with  submitting  a
retraining application, he was not given the opportunity.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

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 probable error or injustice.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case.
However, we agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  Air
Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  When the  applicant  signed  the  AF
Form 964 (PCS, TDY, or Training Declination Statement) on 11 May 1998,
he acknowledged his understanding that  he  would  be  ineligible  for
promotion for the remainder of his enlistment including any  extension
already approved.  Other  than  applicant’s  assertions,  we  find  no
evidence has been presented substantiating his contentions that he was
miscounseled  regarding   promotion   eligibility   if   he   declined
retraining.   Should  the  applicant  provide  supporting   statements
verifying miscounseling, the Board may be willing  to  reconsider  his
appeal.  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.

___________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 July 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
      Mr. George Franklin, Member
      Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 11 Mar 99, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Mar 99, w/atch.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Mar 99.
    Exhibit F.  Letter from Applicant, dated 6 Apr 99, w/atchs.





                                   CATHLYNN SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair