RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03872 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His AF Form 964, PCS, TDY, Deployments, or Training Declination 
Statement, be declared void and removed from his records, and 
his promotion to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) be 
reinstated. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was misinformed by his Commander’s Support Staff (CSS) on the 
impact of his signing the AF Form 964, violating AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, paragraph 5.12, the 
Informed Decision Program. The CSS told him signing the 
AF Form 964 would not affect his line number for TSgt, only 
future testing and promotion. The CSS tried to rescind the 
AF Form 964 five months after the fact, without success. In 
addition, his AF Form 964 was not signed by his Career 
Assistance Advisor (CAA), causing the form to be invalid. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of 
Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5) during the period of time in question. 

 

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. The applicant was tentatively selected for promotion 
to TSgt during cycle 11E6; however, when he signed the 


AF Form 964, he became ineligible for promotion and his line 
number was removed. a career airman who was selected for 
promotion but declines to extend or reenlist to obtain 
retainability for a controlled assignment, PCS, TDY, or 
retraining on or after the promotion eligibility cutoff date 
(PECD) for a particular cycle becomes ineligible for promotion 
consideration in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion 
Demotion Programs. Further, the declination statement, which he 
signed, states “I have read the rules in AFI 36-2502 and AFI 36-
2606 pertaining to loss of reenlistment and promotion 
eligibility and 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. 
Additionally, the form clearly states it is not to be signed 
without complete understanding of its effect on one’s career. 
The applicant’s claim of miscounseling has not been 
substantiated based on the documentation provided. It is 
ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to know his promotion 
eligibility status. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant contends the signed AF Form 964 and the AFI that 
governs this process clearly state that a CAA has to sign for 
non-first term airmen. This single fact requires the form be 
nullified (Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
remove the AF Form 964 indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice. The signature block for the CAA to sign the 
AF Form 964 is only an added layer of keeping the member 
informed of the repercussions of signing the AF Form 964. The 
fact that the CAA did not sign the applicant’s AF Form 964 does 
not make the form invalid. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to 
the applicant on 19 Apr 13 for review and comment within 30 
days. As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit G). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


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, including his rebuttal 
response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree 
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error 
or injustice. While we note the applicant’s contention he was 
miscounseled, he has provided no evidence or verification of 
miscounseling other than his own assertions. The applicant 
voluntarily signed the AF Form 964 affirming he read the AFI 
paragraphs listed on the form which notify members they will not 
be eligible for promotion after signing the document. In 
addition, although the applicant contends his AF Form 964 is 
invalid because the CAA did not sign it, there is no regulatory 
requirement for the CAA to sign the form and thus the lack of a 
CAA signature does not invalidate the form. Therefore, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-03872 in Executive Session on 23 May 13, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2012-03872 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 Sep 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Dec 12, w/atch. 

 Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 9 Apr 13. 

 Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Apr 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair