RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04179 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her records be corrected to reflect she was promoted to the 
grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective and with a date of 
rank of 1 Oct 10. 

 

2. She was retired in said grade on 1 Mar 12. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Were it not for the inexplicable interruption of the staffing of 
her enlistment extension request, she would have attained the 
retainability required to be promoted to master sergeant (E-7) 
before she retired. In August 2010, her supervisor and 
commander submitted a request for her promotion to master 
sergeant; however, she lacked the requisite 24-months of 
retainability required for the promotion. Her supervisors 
submitted a request through proper staffing channels for a 90-
day extension of her enlistment so she could be promoted; 
however, the extension request was never staffed beyond the Air 
National Guard Readiness Center (ANGRC) Human Resource Office 
and therefore, never reached the final approving official, the 
Director of the Air National Guard. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to the applicant’s master personnel records, she 
served on extended active duty with the Air National Guard (ANG) 
in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) during the matter under 
review. 

 

On 9 Mar 10, the applicant’s active duty tour was extended until 
29 Feb 12 to coincide with her attaining 20 years of total 
active federal military service. 


In accordance with ANGI 36-6, Air National Guard Statutory Tour 
Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5.4.2, Directors/2-digit 
equivalents recommending members for extension beyond 20 years 
total active federal military service (TAFMS) must provide 
justification supporting the retention of the member which 
describes why it is in the best interest of the ANG statutory 
tour program to extend member; identify if the individual has 
promotion potential; identify if there is not a pool of 
potential candidates for the position held and why; what will be 
done to ready replacement candidates during the extension period 
if granted; and any special circumstances. 

 

On 1 Mar 12, the applicant retired from the ANG in the grade of 
technical sergeant (E-6) and was credited with 20 years and 13 
days of total active military service. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary and is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/HRS recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice. On 12 Aug 10, NGB/HR received a request 
from NGB/A3 to promote the applicant to the grade of master 
sergeant. However, the applicant did not have the requisite 24 
months of retainability to assume the higher grade in accordance 
with ANGI 36-2101, Air National Guard Active Guard Reserve 
Program. On 18 Aug 10, NGB/HR emailed the applicant’s 
leadership informing them that in accordance with ANGI 36-6, 
paragraph 5.9, requests for extensions of statutory tour members 
beyond 20 years of active duty require approval by the Director, 
Air National Guard (NGB/CF) with justification from NGB/A3. 
Upon receipt of the request, NGB/HR would process to NGB/CF. On 
3 Sep 10, NGB/A3 submitted documentation to NGB/HR requesting a 
90 day extension of the applicant’s estimated time of separation 
(ETS) to accommodate her promotion. On 14 Sep 10, officials 
from NGB/HR and NGB/A3 met to discuss the pending request for an 
extension of the applicant’s enlistment to accommodate the 
promotion. As a result of the meeting, NGB/A3 decided to 
rescind their request for the extension. As such, the applicant 
failed to meet the retainability requirements for promotion to 
the grade of master sergeant. 

 

A complete copy of the NGB/HRS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reiterates her argument that her leadership 
submitted a request for extension in order to promote her to the 
next rank; however, NGB/HR failed to process the request. She 


submits that her commander continues to support her promotion to 
MSgt. 

 

A complete copy of the applicant’s response 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 an error or injustice. The 
applicant contends that the failure of NGB/HR to process her 
request for an extension of her reenlistment unfairly deprived 
her of the retainability she needed to be promoted to master 
sergeant (E-7) prior to her retirement from the Air National 
Guard (ANG). After a thorough review of the evidence of record 
and the applicant’s complete submission, including her rebuttal 
response, we are not convinced the applicant is the victim of an 
error or injustice. While the applicant argues that her case 
turns to the purported failure of NGB/HR to process her request 
for an extension her enlistment, we do not find her arguments or 
the documentation presented sufficient to conclude that her 
request for an extension was not appropriately handled when it 
was apparently returned without action to the recommending 
official for further justification. In this respect, we note 
that in accordance with the provisions of ANGI 36-6, The Air 
National Guard Statutory Tour Program Policies and Procedures, 
requests for extension of statutory tour members beyond 20 years 
of active service need to be fully justified by the recommending 
director and, among other things, explain why the applicant’s 
continued retention is in the best interests of the ANG. While 
it is clear the recommending officials initiated the request for 
an extension of the applicant’s statutory tour so she could gain 
the retainability required to be promoted to the higher grade 
before she retired, her leadership’s initial request for an 
extension does not appear to comply with the requirements of 
ANGI 36-6 as it lacked a clear and convincing justification for 
her retention beyond 20 years of active duty and was likely 
returned without action to the recommending official on that 
basis. While the applicant argues that she was told that her 
request was denied by NGB/HR, rather than returned without 
action, we find such a distinction academic and conclude the 
evidence presented is not sufficient to overcome the presumption 
of regularity in the conduct of government affairs which, in the 
absence of evidence to the contrary, requires us to presume that 
responsible officials acted in good faith in carrying out their 
duties. Accordingly, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


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-2012-04179 in Executive Session on 2 May 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Sep 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/HRS, dated 6 Nov 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Jan 13. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair