RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03785
INDEX CODE: 110.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His request for retirement effective 1 Jun 09 be withdrawn, and his
promotion sequence number for promotion to the grade of master sergeant be
reinstated.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was under the impression the Promotion Statement of Understanding (PSU)
would automatically initiate his request for retirement withdrawal. The
PSU instructions do not clearly direct a person to complete the withdrawal
process through the Virtual Military Personnel Flight (VMPF).
In support of the request, the applicant provides a copy of his PSU, a copy
of his retirement application, and a copy of a Request to Withdraw
Retirement Application Memorandum.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant submitted an application for retirement on 19 Jun 08 with a
retirement effective date of 1 Jun 09. AFPC/DPSOR approved his retirement
and he was issued retirement orders dated 20 Jun 08.
The Air Force released the master sergeant promotion list on 26 Jun 08.
The applicant received the PSU on 30 Jun 08, and returned it on 10 Jul 08.
He received an auto-generated retirement out-processing email on 19 Aug 08.
He submitted a request to withdraw his retirement on 20 Aug 08. On 2 Sep
08, the applicant’s request for withdrawal of his retirement application
was disapproved.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE states in part, the PSU is an informative document regarding
certain requirements when selected for promotion to the grades of master
sergeant through chief master sergeant. It outlines requirements of
accepting the promotion and consequences if those requirements are not met.
If the applicant felt that paragraph 2 of the PSU was unclear regarding
the withdrawal of his retirement application, he should have asked for
clarification before signing.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial and states in part, that since the applicant
did not have a projected promotion on file at the time he submitted his
retirement withdrawal request based on his desire to accept a promotion,
policy requires disapproval of his request to withdraw his retirement.
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9
Jan 09, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no
response has been received by this office.
________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice warranting corrective action. After a
thorough review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, and the
documentation presented in support of the appeal, we believe it is
reasonable to conclude there may have been some confusion on the
applicant’s part as to the action he was supposed to accomplish in order to
accept his promotion to MSgt and withdraw his retirement application. We
took particular note of the actions by the applicant to accept the
promotion in a timely manner and his statement that he assumed this action
would automatically withdraw his retirement application. It appears the
applicant’s confusion resulted from his inexperience and unfamiliarity with
the VMPF and
the new retirement process. In view of the foregoing, as well as the
applicant’s desire to continue in the service of his country, we are
inclined to resolve all doubt regarding this matter in his favor.
Accordingly, we recommend his records be corrected to the extent set forth
below.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:
a. On 10 Jul 08, he requested a withdrawal of his 1 Jun 09 length of
service retirement, as a result of his selection for promotion to the grade
of master sergeant (E-7) during the 08E7 promotion cycle, and it was
approved by competent authority.
b. He was promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) effective
and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 08.
c. He was not relieved from active duty on 31 May 09 and retired for
length of service, effective 1 Jun 09, but continued to serve on extended
active duty, and was ordered permanent change of station (PCS) to his home
of record or home of selection pending further orders.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-03785
in Executive Session on 2 Jun 09, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Ms. Debra M. Czajkowski, Member
Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member
All members voted to correct the record, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered under Docket Number BC-2008-03785:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 08, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29 Oct 08.
Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSOR, dated 3 Nov 08.
Exhibit E. SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 09.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02522
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C & D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR notes the VMPF data printout provided by the applicant indicates an MSM was approved on 2 Jul 01 by Special Order (SO) GC-283; however, the official SO 283...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2004-00487-2
Applicant’s enlistment date was 5 Dec 01 and his date of separation (DOS) was 4 Dec 03. Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit K. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After a careful reconsideration of the applicant's request and his most recent submission, we do not find it sufficiently compelling to warrant a revision of the Board’s prior decision in this case. Exhibit K. Letter, Counsel, dated 23 Nov 08.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03299
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial and indicated they were unable to verify whether the applicant was selected for promotion to master sergeant, since promotion history files are only maintained for a period of 10 years as outlined in AFR 4-20, Table 35-12, Rule 29, Records Disposition Schedule. The applicant made a conscious decision to retire in lieu of accepting promotion to the rank of master sergeant and...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03002
Had he received the DFC when the other crew members did, he would have been selected for promotion to master sergeant (E-7) during the 2008 E7 promotion cycle. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a photograph of the aircrew in question, special orders reflecting the award of the DFC to the other aircrew members, unsigned documentation related to his submission for the DFC, his weighted airman promotion system score notice for the contested promotion cycle, and...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 04000
He states Air Force members do not receive the RDP when the award is presented. The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to master sergeant during the 14E7 promotion cycle. Because the applicant did not take corrective action to ensure his decoration was properly updated in his record until four years after it was awarded and after he became aware he missed promotion by less than three points, it is recommend denying his request to use the AFCM in the promotion process...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00901
The DPSOE response was negative and they state that being awarded the PH may not have made a difference to his promotion in the 75B7 promotion cycle. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice that require resolution on its merits. Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the untimely filing of the application regarding his request for promotion to...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-03543
INDEX CODE: 135.02 AFBCMR BC-2008-03543 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01820
The applicant filed an appeal through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, however, the ERAB was not convinced the contested report was inaccurate or unjust and disapproved the applicants request. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04554
He be allowed to test for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) and be considered for promotion by the SMSgt promotion board during cycle 13E8. The reason the these documents did not go before the promotion board is because their close out dates did not meet the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) for any previous cycle; the PECD for cycle 12E8 was 30 Sep 11; therefore, the first time these documents would have been considered by a promotion board was cycle 13E8 that...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03804
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 2 Sep 11, while deployed in Afghanistan, he looked at his promotion data in the vMPF and noticed his promotion information changed and his official score was above the cutoff. He believes receiving a new score notice in the vMPF constitutes his promotion notification and requests the Board honor this notification of promotion. _________________________________________________________________ THE...