RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00479
		
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.	His service commitment be extended to allow him the required 
two years of retainability to allow his promotion to chief 
master sergeant.

2.	As an alternative, his effective date of promotion to chief 
master sergeant be backdated to March 2012 or July 2012.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In February 2012, he was notified that he was selected for a 
chief master sergeant Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) 
position.  After some administrative delays in processing, he 
was officially placed in the position on 5 March 2012.  Shortly 
after being placed in the position, he inquired about his 
promotion and was informed that he had to complete the required 
Professional Military Education (PME) Air For Reserve Command 
Chief Orientation Course (COC) prior to promotion.  
Administrative delays in processing his request to attend the 
April 2012 COC led to him attending the course in June 2012.

After completion of the course, he inquired about his promotion 
and was informed that after completing the checklist to process 
his promotion, they discovered there was an administrative 
error.  In calculating his service retainability, his records 
indicated that he lacked the required two years retainability 
for promotion, in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airmen 
Promotion/Demotion Programs.  He reviewed the AFI and discovered 
it was not applicable to the Air Force Reserve and National 
Guard personnel.  When he informed the unit, he was told they 
mistakenly referenced the wrong regulation; they should have 
referenced AFRCI 26-2106.

AFRCI 36-2106 indicates when a service member who does not have 
the minimum two year service retainability is selected for 
promotion; the service member must either obtain the 
retainability by reenlisting or, extending their enlistment to 
meet the requirement.  The regulation further states if the 
member cannot obtain the retainability, they are required to 
submit a Reserve Service Commitment letter or a Promotion 
Retainability Waiver Request to facilitate the promotion.  He 
was advised that although AFI 36-2502 had provisions for 
extending high year tenure, obtaining the extension would be too 
difficult; therefore, he requested a waiver. 

He waited until 4 December 2012 in anticipation of the 
notification of promotion and was informed the waiver was 
returned.  He contacted the Air Force Reserve Command on 
4 January 2013 and was told that they did not accept waivers.  
He was also informed that his promotion waiver request was not 
accepted for coordination because previous service members whose 
waivers were accepted and approved subsequently failed to meet 
standards.  This is an unofficial policy and contradicts AFRCI 
36-2106 that allows for waivers to be accepted properly 
coordinated to facilitate the selection for best qualified 
candidates that lack the 2 year retainability.  

He has dedicated his life to government service.  This has 
caused him a great deal of stress and anxiety and public 
embarrassment.  It is an honor to serve and make contributions 
in developing new policies; however, the reason for accepting to 
position was promotion.  He would have never willingly accepted 
a lateral transfer from his previous position which was 12 miles 
away from his home into a position that is 600 miles away.  

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, e-mail correspondence, referenced AFI’s and his 
waiver request.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a member of the Air Force Reserves serving in 
the grade of senior master sergeant.  The remaining relevant 
facts pertaining to this case are contained in the letter 
prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K recommends denial.  The applicant alleges the mandatory 
Air Force Reserve promotion instruction was not followed and as 
such he and the selection authority were not notified of the 
proper retainability requirements for his selection for 
promotion.  This alleged oversight delayed and withheld his 
promotion to chief master sergeant.

Air Force Reserve enlisted members are promoted in accordance 
with AFPD 36-25 and Air Reserve Promotion Policy.  Under the 
provisions of the Air Force Enlisted Promotion Policy, 
individuals must have: 9-skill level in their primary Air Force 
Specialty Code, 24-months’ time in grade, 14 years of 
satisfactory service for retirement, completed the AF Reserve 
Chief Orientation Course, a satisfactory participant in 
accordance with AFI 36-2254V1, Reserve Personnel Participation, 
met Air Force physical fitness standards and be able to obtain 
24 months retainability to be eligible for promotion to chief 
master sergeant.  The individual must be recommended by the 
assigned supervisor and approved by the promotion authority.

The applicant alleges that delays in processes as well as ARPC 
and another unit not following the mandatory instruction AFRCI 
36-2106 caused his promotion to chief master sergeant be 
withheld.  After a careful review of the documents provided by 
the applicant, it was discovered that he was unable to obtain 
the 24 months retainability (required for promotion 
consideration) at the time he submitted his application on 
12 December 2011.  With an October 2013 high year tenure date, 
he could only obtain 22 months retainability when he applied for 
the position and only 20 months retainability at the time when 
he was gained into the position in March 2012.  Reserve members 
who are unable to obtain the required retainability are 
considered ineligible for promotion and this criterion is not 
waiverable.   Lastly, there is no AFRCI 36-2106 to follow.

The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates that he has dedicated his life to 
government service.  He states the advisory is misleading by 
indicating that his placement was based on his reassignment 
request and not merit.  Air Force Reserve members are placed in 
upgrade positions when they are determined to meet the 
requirements for promotion to the authorized grade.  Prior to 
selection for the position, the unit reviewed his records, to 
include his servicer retainability.  His unit knew that he had 
22 months retainability when they selected him for the position.  
He is now being unjustly denied his earned promotion.

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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we are not persuaded that he is entitled to 
the relief he seeks.  His contentions are duly noted; however, 
he has not provided persuasive evidence to override the 
rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility (OPR).  Therefore, we agree with the opinion and 
recommendation of the OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis 
for our conclusion that the applicant was unable to obtain the 
required retainability of 24 months due to his high year tenure 
in accordance with AFRCI 36-2102 Table 1.1.2; therefore, he was 
ineligible for promotion to chief master sergeant.  
Additionally, while the applicant contends his high year tenure 
date extension waiver was not properly considered, the evidence 
submitted shows that his request was disapproved by the 
commander.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the 
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief 
sought in this application.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; that the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 
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-2013-00479 in Executive Session on 24 October 2013, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 13, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 21 May 13.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jul 13.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs.