RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00741
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His promotion to the grade of technical sergeant be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His line number for promotion to the grade of technical  sergeant  was
rescinded without his knowledge  due  to  a  faulty  briefing  at  the
Military Personnel Flight (MPF).  He was not properly advised that  he
would lose his line number if he declined to obtain  permanent  change
of station (PCS) retainability for his assignment to Korea.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, documentation pertaining to his request  for  reinstatement
of his promotion, including an electronic mail  (e-mail)  response  to
the applicant from the Inspector General (IG).

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
staff sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Apr  99.   His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 10 Jun 92.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  He alleges he was  not  properly  briefed
that signing an AF Form 964 would result  in  his  line  number  being
removed.

AFPC/DPAAD noted  that  the  21st   Space  Wing  IG  investigated  the
applicant's  allegations  and  confirmed  that  he  was  not  properly
counseled  regarding  the  signing  of  AF  Form  964.   The  IG  also
determined that the applicant bore the responsibility to ask questions
when executing the AF Form 964.  The statement  contained  in  the  AF
Form 964 the applicant had to sign clearly states “I understand that I
am ineligible  for  promotion  for  the  remainder  of  my  enlistment
including any extension already approved.”  In AFPC/DPAAD's view,  his
signature on the  bottom  of  the  AF  Form  964  indicated  his  full
understanding of each of the items on the form.  If he was unclear  of
the impact on his line number, he was obligated  to  inquire  at  that
time.

According to AFPC/DPAAD, the applicant came on  line  in  Nov  02  and
requested his PCS declination be removed.  The  assignment  office  of
primary responsibility (OPR) removed the declination and provided  the
applicant with another assignment to Korea (which was the condition of
declination removal).  In Feb 03, the applicant again declined to  get
retainability for this assignment and executed another  AF  Form  964,
resulting in  the  cancellation  of  the  assignment.   The  issue  of
reinstatement of  the  promotion  line  number  rests  with  AFPC/DPP.
However, based on the second declination with full  knowledge  of  the
ramifications, it's apparent the applicant does not desire to go where
the Air Force needs  him  but  still  wants  the  pay  and  associated
benefits of being a technical sergeant.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAAD evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial.  They noted  that  the  applicant  was
tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of technical  sergeant
during cycle 01E6 per Promotion Sequence Number (PSN)  11866.0,  which
would have incremented on 1 Jul 02.  He  signed  an  AF  Form  964  on
31 May 02 which rendered him ineligible for  promotion  consideration.
In Nov 02, he requested  the  declination  be  removed,  was  provided
another assignment, and in Feb 03 again declined to get  retainability
and executed another AF Form 964.

AFPC/DPPPWB indicated 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 or she becomes ineligible for
promotion consideration as outlined in AFI 3 6-2502, Table  1.1,  Rule
3.  The applicant stated that his MPF failed to  inform  him  that  he
would lose his promotion line  number  to  technical  sergeant  if  he
declined to get PCS retainability for his assignment to Korea.  An  IG
investigation confirmed that he was not properly  counseled  regarding
the signing of AF Form 964.  They also determined that  the  applicant
bore the responsibility to ask questions when executing  the  AF  Form
964.  The declination statement, which  he  signed  in  agreement  to,
states “I understand that  I  am  ineligible  for  promotion  for  the
remainder of my enlistment."  When the applicant signed this form,  he
acknowledged the loss of promotion eligibility, and verifies  that  he
has read the rules in the applicable directives.   Finally,  the  form
clearly states it is not to be signed without a complete understanding
of its effect on one’s career.  In AFPC/DPPPWB's view,  the  applicant
made a  conscious  decision  to  decline  the  retainability  for  the
assignment knowing the consequences of his  decision;  i.e.,  loss  of
both promotion and reenlistment eligibility.  This action canceled his
projected promotion to the grade of technical sergeant that was to  be
effective 1 Jul 02.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that  regarding  the  AF Form
declination statement, he would like to reiterate that  he  was  under
the impression that he  would  be  ineligible  for  further  promotion
testing and would not  lose  the  promotion  line  number  he  already
achieved.  Nowhere on the form does it state that line  numbers  would
be rescinded, and the MPF personnel never indicated to him  that  this
would occur.  He resents the insinuation that he refused to  abide  by
Air Force needs and still wants to reap the benefits of the rank.   He
maintains that the MPF did not fulfill their duties to properly inform
him of the facts, and that the timing of his orders was manipulated to
cheat him out of a promotion.

Applicant's complete response 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  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find  the  applicant’s  assertions  or  the
documentation  presented  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary  responsibility  (OPRs).   Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
evidence that he  was  treated  differently  from  similarly  situated
individuals, we agree with the recommendation of the  OPRs  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our decision that the  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of  establishing  that  he  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-00741 in Executive Session on 8 Jul 03, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
      Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins-Taylor, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAAD, dated 25 Mar 03.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 12 May 03.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair