RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00344
            INDEX NUMBER:  100.00
      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  1 Aug 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His current high year of tenure (HYT) of 14 Mar 06 be extended  by  24
months in the best interest of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Due to his own poor judgment, he made decisions based on his financial
problems that nearly cost him his career.  As a result of prior relief
granted by the AFBCMR, he was given an opportunity to  test  to  staff
sergeant (SSgt).  He tested and, based on his time in  grade,  assumed
the grade of SSgt on 1 Jul 05.

He is requesting the same  HYT  he  would  have  had  as  a  technical
Sergeant (TSgt).  Two additional years on active duty would allow  him
to serve his country and provide the much  needed  time  to  be  fully
utilized by his unit.

In support of his appeal, the  applicant  has  provided  a  letter  of
support from his wing commander, a number of letters of  reference,  a
manning chart for his Air Force Specialty Code  (AFSC),  and  enlisted
performance reports (EPRs) rendered on him since his return to duty.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 19 Oct 84.  On  19  Jan  01
while serving in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt), the applicant was
court-martialed for two charges with ten specifications related to bad-
checks and payment of just debts.  He pleaded guilty  to  all  charges
and specifications.  His sentence consisted of reduction to the  grade
of airman basic (AB) (E-1), confinement for five  months,  and  a  bad
conduct discharge (BCD).  The applicant applied for and  was  accepted
into  the  Return-to-Duty-Program.   He  successfully  completed   the
program on 5 Feb 02.  At applicant’s request, the Air  Force  Clemency
and Parole Board reviewed his case in Mar 02 and approved  his  return
to duty and suspended his bad conduct discharge until 11 Mar 03.   The
Air Force Clemency and Parole Board later  shortened  this  period  by
remitting the BCD effective 21 Jan 03.  In Sep 03, the  AFBCMR  denied
the applicant’s request to be restored to the grade of staff  sergeant
(SSgt) with a date of rank (DOR) of 1  Dec  92.   However,  the  Board
decided to grant the applicant a measure of relief based  on  clemency
and promoted him to the grade of senior airman with a DOR of 1 Oct 03,
which allowed him an opportunity to test for promotion to the grade of
SSgt and allow him  to  retire  in  that  grade.   The  applicant  was
promoted to SSgt effective and with a DOR of  1  Jul  05.   He  has  a
scheduled date of separation of 14 Mar 06 and can apply for retirement
to be effective 1 Apr 06.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRRP recommends denial of the applicant’s request.   They  note
that their office never received an HYT  extension  request  from  the
applicant  other  than  in  the  form  of  his   AFBCMR   application.
AFPC/DPPRRP points out that AFI 36-3203 specifically  allows  no  more
than a one-year extension.  They further note that HYT extensions  are
designed to address specific problems  and  issues,  not  to  allow  a
member the opportunity to test for the next higher grade,  which  they
believe the applicant’s request is based on.  The applicant  is  first
eligible to test for promotion to TSgt in 2007.   The  promotion  list
would not be announced until  mid-summer  2007,  typically  July,  and
sewing-on in Aug  07.   A  12-month  extension  would  not  allow  the
applicant to  remain  on  active  duty  through  the  announcement  of
promotion results.

Regarding the applicant’s  rationale  for  an  extension  under  “best
interest of the Air Force,” according to AFI 35-3203, paragraph  2.20,
individuals   granted   extensions   must   be   “uniquely   qualified
noncommissioned officers (NCOs) filling critical positions  when  they
are  essential  to  the  success  of  a  vital  mission  and  suitable
replacements can’t be found.”  There is no evidence the  applicant  is
“uniquely” skilled.  The applicant package also cites  manning  as  an
issue.  Though 5-level manning is  currently  short,  several  factors
mitigate this to include: manning well in excess of 100% for  7-levels
(who can do 5-level work), an ongoing 1,500 manning reduction  in  the
personnel career field over the next five years, and the impending cut
of  approximately  30,000  enlisted   members   due   to   Air   Force
reorganization.

As of the date of this  advisory,  the  applicant  has  not  requested
retirement.  The Military Personnel Flight (MPF)  commander  has  been
alerted to advise the applicant he should not wait for a  decision  on
this application before requesting retirement.  Many SSgts with  clean
records are required to retire at 20 years of service and even  though
the applicant and others state he is  rehabilitated,  the  applicant’s
overall service has been less  than  sterling  compared  to  his  SSgt
contemporaries.  The applicant has already had the opportunity to stay
one year beyond  his  20-year  HYT  of  28  Feb  05,  giving  him  the
opportunity to compete for and receive the promotion to SSgt.

The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant explains why he
submitted his request for an extension directly to the Board.

The applicant states that his request has nothing to do with  rank  or
longevity, but a need to contribute to the Air Force.  He states  that
the current policy of only being able to extend for 12 months does not
allow  him  the  opportunity  to  deploy  and  be  fully  utilized  to
contribute to the Air Force.

The applicant submits supporting documentation regarding  his  request
for an HYT extension.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice.  The majority of  the  Board
is persuaded by the tremendous support the applicant has received from
his chain of command that approval of  his  request  is  in  the  best
interest of the Air Force.  The majority notes  the  comments  of  his
wing commander that retaining the applicant beyond his HYT is a  “win-
win synergistic move.”  We also  note  that  the  applicant  has  made
invaluable contributions to keeping  other  NCOs  from  repeating  his
mistake by sharing his story with them.  He is a good example  of  the
message that the Air Force is willing to give a second chance to those
who prove themselves deserving through their perseverance, performance
of duty and positive attitude.  The majority strongly recommends  that
the requested relief be granted.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that  competent  authority
approved a waiver of his High Year of Tenure (HYT) as an exception  to
policy, thereby establishing his date of  separation  as  28  February
2008.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 27 February 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
      Ms. Rita S. Looney, Member

By  majority  vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as
recommended.  Ms. Looney voted to deny and  has  attached  a  minority
report  at  Exhibit  F.   The  following  documentary   evidence   was
considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 8 Feb 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Feb 06.
    Exhibit E.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 16 Feb 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Minority Report




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

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


SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX


          In Executive Session on 27 February 2006, we  considered  the
applicant’s request for a two-year extension of his high year of tenure
(HYT) based on the best interest of the Air Force.  A majority  of  the
Board voted to grant his request.  I disagree with their decision.

          The majority has based their decision to grant  primarily  on
the support the applicant has from his chain of  command.   However,  I
believe the Air Force Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) has made a
compelling case that the applicant’s request should not be granted.  Of
grave concern to me is that we are granting the applicant  a  privilege
that most of his contemporaries  with  unblemished  records  would  not
receive.  Further, this  Board  previously  granted  this  applicant  a
change in his date of rank to senior airman and a HYT extension  as  an
exception to policy to afford him the opportunity to test for promotion
to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt).  Part of the rationale expressed
at the time is that if the applicant did get promoted to SSgt, he would
be able to retire in the higher grade.

          Now the applicant has come to this  Board  again  asking  for
essentially the same thing, but under the guise that it is in the  best
interest of the Air Force to  grant  him  another  HYT  extension.   He
supports his argument by providing numerous  letters  of  support  that
laud his performance since returning to duty.  However,  I  must  point
out that the controlling criteria for approving a HYT extension in  the
best interest of the Air Force is not based  on  superior  performance.
The policy states that the applicant must be a uniquely  qualified  NCO
filling a critical position when they are essential to the success of a
vital mission and suitable replacements  can’t  be  found.   While  the
applicant’ commander attempts to  justify  the  request  based  on  his
manning posture, the Air Force OPR has refuted  his  argument  pointing
out the applicant is not in a  uniquely  qualified  position  and  that
although 5-level NCOs in his field may  be  undermanned,  7-levels  are
overmanned  and  can  perform  5-level  work.   Ironically,  given  the
applicant’s time in service and absent the court-martial  that  reduced
him in grade, he would most likely be a 7-level  himself.   Finally,  I
concur with the Air Force OPR that the applicant’s request  appears  to
be motivated by a desire for an opportunity  to  get  promoted  to  the
grade of technical sergeant and that a HYT extension is not designed to
support this type of action.

          I believe to approve this request sends a bad message to  the
Air Force at large, particularly at a time when  we  are  reducing  our
ranks.  It is  also  unfair  to  the  many  Air  Force  personnel  with
exemplary records who are required to leave at the conclusion of  their
careers or enlistment.  I strongly recommend this request be denied.




                       RITA S. LOONEY
                       Panel Member

AFBCMR BC-2006-00344


MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to XXXXXXX, XXXXXXX, be corrected to show that
competent authority approved a waiver of his High Year of Tenure
(HYT) as an exception to policy, thereby establishing his date of
separation as 28 February 2008.




            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency