RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-01747
            INDEX CODE 131.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His promotion line number to technical sergeant (TSgt)  be  reinstated
with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Jun 02.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

--- Military Personnel Flight  (MPF)  miscounseled  him  and  did  not
provide the mandatory Enlisted Overseas Returnee  Counseling  Handout.
If he had been properly informed he would have been aware of his three
options:  (1)  obtain  required  service  retainability   to   receive
permanent  change  of  station  (PCS)/temporary  duty   (TDY)/training
consideration, (2) decline retainability by completing an AF Form  964
or (3) apply for separation/retirement  to  coincide  with  his  DEROS
(Date Eligible for Return from Overseas). He unfortunately  chose  the
second option when he should have chosen the third. According to AFPC,
he could not start his separation process until six months before  his
DOS. This process would have started in mid-June or early July and  he
would need to sign an AF Form 964. The form would have had  no  affect
on his promotion then since he would have been promoted on 1 June. The
lack of the handout was the first mistake and set the events.  In  Feb
02, he read the line in  the  AF  Form  964  indicating  he  would  be
ineligible for  promotion.  He  specifically  asked  during  the  mass
briefing if his signing the form would negatively affect his promotion
and was told it would not. As a result, he marked and signed the  form
indicating he did not wish to PCS. It wasn’t until Oct 02,  after  his
deployment and injury and when he was preparing to  separate  that  he
noticed the rank/pay problem  on  his  leave  and  earnings  statement
(LES). He hadn’t thought there was a problem as  he  had  a  promotion
ceremony at his deployed location and his MPF issued a new ID card.

The applicant provides a statement from a fellow attendee at the  mass
briefing. His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

If on or after the Promotion Eligibility  Cutoff  Date  (PECD)  for  a
particular promotion cycle a career airman applies for  retirement  in
lieu  of  or  declines  to  extend  or  reenlist  to  obtain   service
retainability for a controlled assignment, PCS, and retraining, he/she
becomes ineligible for promotion  consideration.  AFI  36-2502,  Table
1.1, Rule 3, stipulates  that  airmen  who  decline  retainability  to
accept an assignment become ineligible for promotion consideration and
are not eligible  for  promotion  consideration  until  HQ  AFPC/DPAAD
withdraws the assignment declination. The member becomes eligible  for
promotion consideration for future cycles as along as he is  otherwise
eligible.

The stated  purpose  of  the  AF  Form  964,  PCS,  TDY,  or  Training
Declination Statement, is to record a member’s declination to reenlist
or extend to obtain retainability to satisfy the  requirements  for  a
reassignment, TDY or training for which selected  and  to  acknowledge
counseling on career impact of such action. In signing the  form,  the
member  further  attests  to  his  full  understanding  that   he   is
“ineligible for  promotion  for  the  remainder  of  [his]  enlistment
including any extension already approved.”

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 1 Dec 92,  and  was
ultimately promoted to staff sergeant on 1 Aug 97. During  the  period
in question, he was an F-15 avionics team leader at -----.

The applicant tested for promotion to TSgt for cycle 01E6 on 14 Mar 01
and was selected for promotion on 29 May 01 with a projected DOR of  1
Jun 02.

In Sep 01, the applicant received his DEROS Option RIP. He had a DEROS
of 9 Dec 02 and a date of separation (DOS) of 27 Dec 02.

On 26 Feb 02, after attending a mass  briefing  for  people  having  a
DEROS within a specific timeframe, the applicant signed an AF Form 964
declination statement. He also initialed his understanding at Items a.
through  e.  This  included  Items  b.,  b(1)  and  b(2),   indicating
understanding with regard to retainability and his  ineligibility  for
reenlistment and for promotion for the remainder  of  his  enlistment.
(See Exhibit B.) As a  result  of  his  declination,  the  applicant’s
projected promotion to TSgt by cycle  01E6  was  revoked  and  he  was
rendered ineligible for promotion consideration by cycle 02E6.

On 11 Jul 02, the applicant requested separation effective  27 Dec  02
(his original DOS), with a terminal leave start date of 7 Nov 02.  His
request was approved.

On 7 Nov 02, the applicant apparently filed an inspector general  (IG)
complaint, alleging he specifically asked the briefer if his  initials
on the AF Form 964 would cancel his promotion and  that  her  response
was “No”. 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 IG added the conversation  was  irrelevant  because
the applicant initialed in two  areas  on  the  form,  which  outlines
promotion  ineligibility.  Further,  the  IG  asserted  the  applicant
received a copy of the handout when he received his DEROS  option  RIP
in Sep 01. The handout directed him to the  MPF  for  counsel  if  his
desire was to separate. As a result, his case was dismissed.

The applicant apparently  retracted  his  original  AF  Form  964  and
reenlisted on 27 Nov 02 for five years and one month, giving him a new
DOS of 26 Dec 07.

On 2 Dec 02, the applicant requested his commanders that his promotion
to TSgt be reinstated in accordance with AFI 36-2502, para. 3.3.3, but
with his original DOR of 1 Jun 02.

On 23 Dec 02, the SAF/IG notified the applicant that the  --  Wing  IG
had transferred his complaints and requested assistance in reinstating
his rank through HQ AFPC. The SAF/IG suggested the applicant  file  an
appeal with the AFBCMR.

On 4 Mar 03, HQ AFPC/DPP advised  HQ  PACAF/DP  that  they  could  not
favorably support reinstatement of the applicant’s promotion  sequence
number because it would  give  him  an  unfair  advantage  over  other
individuals in  the  same  position.  At  the  time,  there  were  923
individuals who were ineligible for  promotion  consideration  due  to
assignment declination for cycle 01E6.

The applicant again tested and was selected for TSgt in the 03E6 cycle
and has an estimated DOR of around 1 Oct 03.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/CD notes the applicant’s own statement indicates the  AF  Form
964 he signed indicated he would be ineligible for promotion  for  the
remainder of his enlistment. Documents from the 3rd  Wing  IG  reflect
the briefer was interviewed and no miscounseling found.  Further,  the
applicant received the Enlisted Oversea  Returnee  Counseling  Handout
when he received his DEROS Option RIP in Sep  01.  Based  on  all  the
factors  they  are  able  to   substantiate,   it   seems   everything
accomplished by the MPF was correct. The applicant read and signed the
AF Form  964  and  must  bear  personal  responsibility  in  what  has
happened. Disapproval is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB contends that when the applicant signed  the  form,  he
acknowledged the loss of promotion eligibility and  verified  he  read
the rules in the applicable directives. The form clearly states it  is
not to be signed without a complete understanding of  its  effects  on
one’s  career.  He  made  a  conscious   decision   to   decline   the
retainability assignment knowing the  consequences  of  his  decision,
i.e., loss of promotion  and  reenlistment  eligibility.  This  action
canceled his projected promotion to TSgt. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant questions how the IG team determined the briefer did not
miscounsel him when his witness was not contacted. Further, he did not
receive a copy of the handout with his DEROS Option RIP  and  he  asks
how the briefer would know whether he got one or not as it was not her
job to personally hand out either document. He challenges  the  IG  to
interview members of  his  former  flight  and  see  how  many  people
actually receive the handout.  He  takes  offense  to  the  advisory’s
personal responsibility  statement  when  MPF  personnel  can  counsel
incorrectly or incompetently yet bear no responsibility whatsoever. If
he had been given correct information, he would not  have  signed  the
form but would have proceeded to Separations instead,  which  was  his
intent in  the  first  place.  He  also  questions  the  outdated  AFR
referenced on the AF  Form  964  as  governing  directives  have  been
replaced by AFIs. It was his intention to separate at his  27  Dec  02
DOS, which he assumed an AF Form 964 would allow him to do. He submits
his Stop Loss Member’s Statement  of  Intent,  which  was  not  signed
sooner as he was deployed for approximately 180 days. He has  retested
and will be promoted to TSgt around 1 Sep 03. He hopes the  series  of
mistakes leads to a favorable decision on his DOR.

A complete copy  of  applicant’s  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 error or injustice. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, a majority  of  the
Board is not persuaded that his promotion to TSgt with a DOR of  1 Jun
02 should be reinstated. The statement from a fellow briefing attendee
was noted.  However,  the  --  Wing,  HQ  AFPC,  and  SAF  IG  offices
apparently were satisfied  the  applicant  was  not  miscounseled  and
understood his promotion ineligibility.   The  Board  majority  allows
that possibly the  briefer  may  have  misunderstood  the  applicant’s
question or the applicant may have misunderstood the briefer’s answer.
What is unmistakable to the majority of the  Board  is  the  applicant
signed  and  initialed  the  AF  Form  964  indicating  he  had  “full
understanding” that his declination made him ineligible for  promotion
for the remainder of his enlistment. When  he  signed  this  form,  he
acknowledged the loss of promotion eligibility and  verified  he  read
the rules of the applicable directives. In fact, the form states  that
it should not be signed without a complete understanding of its effect
on one’s career. The Board majority  believes  the  applicant  made  a
conscious  decision  to  decline  retainability  for  the  assignment,
knowing  the  consequences  would  be  loss  of  both  promotion   and
reenlistment eligibility. He subsequently changed his  mind,  had  the
declination  statement  withdrawn,  reenlisted,  became  eligible  for
future promotion cycles, and was selected for TSgt by cycle  03E6.  To
grant this appeal would give the applicant an  unfair  advantage  over
hundreds of other individuals ineligible for  promotion  consideration
due to assignment declination  for  cycle  01E6.  The  Board  majority
believes the applicant  must  bear  personal  responsibility  for  his
decision and therefore concludes the application should be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the  panel  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 September 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
                 Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
                 Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member

By a majority vote, the Board recommended denial of  the  application.
Ms. Abbott voted to grant and has submitted a
Minority Report at Exhibit  G.   The  following  documentary  evidence
relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01747 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 May 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/CD, dated 29 May 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Jun 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Jul 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Minority Report.



                                   ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-01747

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  Minority Report on AFBCMR Application of SSgt

      The applicant requests that his promotion to technical sergeant
(TSgt) by cycle 01E6, with a date of rank (DOR) DOR of 1 June 2002, be
reinstated. The applicant alleges the ---Military Personnel Flight
(MPF) briefer erroneously told him at a mass DEROS (Date Eligible for
Return from Overseas) briefing that signing the AF Form 964
Declination Statement would not adversely impact his line number. A
fellow attendee provided a statement confirming both the applicant’s
question and the briefer’s answer. Nevertheless, in Executive Session
on 23 September 2003, my colleagues concluded the applicant’s request
should be denied.

      The Declination Statement does clearly bear the applicant’s
initials and signature attesting to his supposed “full understanding”
that he was ineligible for promotion and reenlistment for the
remainder of his enlistment.  However, he apparently felt enough
confusion to raise the question regarding his pending promotion.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding with regard to the applicant’s
question and the briefer’s answer, but I do not believe the witness’s
statement can be disregarded.  The briefer was the resident “expert”
and the applicant was reasonable in assuming that what she told him,
or what he understood her to have told him, was reliable.  The
applicant contends that, contrary to the assertions of the --- Wing IG
and the Air Force advisory, he did not receive the Overseas Returnee
Counseling Handout.  I also agree with the applicant, and find it
disturbing, that the AF Form 964 being used in 2002 still referred
individuals to nonexistent Air Force Regulations for guidance when, in
fact, these directives had been superceded by Air Force Instructions.
Noting this, why wouldn’t anyone turn to the briefer for
clarification?

      I further believe consideration should be given to the fact that
the applicant subsequently had his Declination Statement withdrawn,
his promotion and reenlistment eligibility reinstated, and was
promoted to TSgt by cycle 03E6. This young enlisted member obviously
wants to continue his career in the Air Force.  I don’t believe his
experience should be embittered by taking away a promotion he earned
in 2001, lost through a misunderstanding, and regained through hard
work and effort.

      I urge that any doubt in this case be resolved in the
applicant’s favor and his request be granted.




                                  LESLIE E. ABBOTT
                                  Board Member

AFBCMR  BC-2003-01747



MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                                        FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY
RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency