RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03210
INDEX CODE: 131.09
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her promotion eligibility status (PES) code "C" be removed and changed to
"X" to make her eligible for promotion and allow her to pin-on technical
sergeant (E-6).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She tested for technical sergeant and was selected; however, she did not
realize that by declining retraining she would become ineligible for
promotion. She was unclear of the ineligibility guidance for members that
were already selected for promotion when she signed the AF IMT 964 (PCS,
TDY, or Training Declination Statement).
In support of her request, the applicant provided a copy of the Weighted
Airman Promotion System (WAPS) Score Notice, a copy of a printout, and a
letter from her commander and superintendent.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
staff sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank
(DOR) of 1 July 2002. Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date
(TAFMSD) is 11 February 1998.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states that when the applicant
declined retraining the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) was updated
with a PES Code "C" which identifies career airman who decline retraining
and makes them ineligible for promotion. Per AFI 36-2626 (Airman
Retraining Program) airman who decline retraining will not receive
supplemental promotion consideration for any cycle for which they were
ineligible under these guidelines and promotion is not authorized.
DPSOE states the AF IMT 964 specifically provides the ineligibility for
promotion statement in paragraph 1a(2) of the form. The applicant had a
projected promotion at the time she signed the form; she needed to stay
eligible for promotion, but by signing the form she became ineligible and
could not be promoted to technical sergeant.
The complete DPSOE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
She provides a personal letter which refers to an NCO Retraining Program
Memorandum which was signed by herself and her Commander. Paragraph B of
the memorandum caused confusion, which she blames for her decision to
decline retraining; the paragraph states that she will be ineligible for
promotion, the promotion test will not be scored and if the test was
erroneously scored, her name will be removed from the select list.
Her complete submission, with attachment, 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. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board
majority finds no evidence of an error in this case and is not persuaded by
the applicant's assertions, that she has been the victim of an injustice.
In this respect, the Board majority notes that the AF IMT 964 signed by the
applicant clearly states that by voluntarily declining retraining she
understood that she would be ineligible for promotion for the remainder of
her enlistment. Notwithstanding the support and recommendations of her
supervisor and commander, absent evidence that the applicant was treated
different than similarly situated individuals, the Board majority agrees
with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopts its rationale as the basis for their conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board majority
finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 Docket Number BC-2008-03210
in Executive Session on 18 November 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Panel Chair
Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request. Mr. Shelton
voted to correct the record and did not desire to submit a minority report.
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 August 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 8 September 2008,
w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 September 2008.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, 2 October 2008.
GREGORY A. PARKER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03872
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C and F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of his request for promotion reinstatement indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
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. 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). As such, there was no error or injustice in applicant’s selection for...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02422
In support of his request, the applicant provided a copy of the contested OPR, a copy of the reaccomplished report, AF IMT 709, Promotion Recommendation, and documentation associated with his Evaluation Reports Appeal board (ERAB) submission. The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY07B (27 November 2007), Lieutenant Colonel CSB. Unfortunately for the applicant however, a December 2007 close-out date made the report ineligible...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00741
_________________________________________________________________ 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. The applicant stated that his MPF failed to inform him that he would lose his promotion line number to...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01747
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 handout directed him to the MPF for counsel if his desire was to separate. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05819
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05819 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her current Date of Rank (DOR) be changed to reflect that she was promoted during cycle 09E5 rather than Cycle 10E5. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommended denial of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03728
On 2 Sep 08, HQ AFPC/DPSOA notified him that his request to cancel his retraining could not be supported. At that time, he indicated by email he understood he would have to separate on 21 Oct 08, his Date of Separation (DOS), and he would receive an RE code of “3E.” ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial, stating, in part, that there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Further, on 12 Sep 08, he stated in...
On 18 July 2000, she was informed that AFPC/DPAAD2 approved her request to withdraw the PCS declination statement and that she would not be able to test out of cycle because her package was not submitted in time. The applicant states that she turned down an assignment but was approved to stay in and believes she would have been approved before the cut off date for testing if her package had not been lost and resubmitted. After the commander disapproved her package, the FSO received the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-00436
On 20 Nov 06, the request was disapproved by the MPF Chief and the Mission Support Squadron (MSS) commander, stating that in accordance with AFI 36- 2605, Air Force Military Personnel Testing System, the applicant’s excuse was not a valid reason to reschedule testing, promotion testing time is never changed, and that he was informed of the correct time to report for testing. The testing time never changes and is always at 0750. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02013
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Through counsel applicant states she was issued an LOR for allegedly having an unprofessional relationship with another Airman, who was not in her chain of command or a member of her unit. In this case, the LOR dated 7 December 2006, was filed in the UIF. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented...