RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00431
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. He receive promotion consideration to the grade of Technical
Sergeant (TSgt, E-6) for promotion cycle 14E6.
2. He receive full separation pay under High Year Tenure (HYT)
instead of half separation pay.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His nonrecommendation for promotion to the grade of TSgt during
promotion cycle 13E6 should not have affected his ability to test
for promotion during cycle 14E6. He was told that he would
receive an honorable discharge with full separation pay under HYT
but the error with his promotion caused him to only receive half
separation pay.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 12 Aug 98, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and
served on active duty until 17 Dec 13, when he was honorably
discharged in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with a narrative
reason for separation of Non-Retention on Active Duty. He was
credited with 15 years, 4 months, and 6 days of total active
service.
On 14 Nov 13, the applicant received a referral Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR) indicating he failed to meet standards;
did not meet minimum for sit-ups. This caused the report to be
referred.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to be
considered for promotion to the grade of TSgt indicating he was
separated on 17 Dec 13 and ineligible in accordance with AFI 36-
2502, Airman Promotion Program Table 2.1. The applicant was
considered and tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of
TSgt during cycle 13E6. His Promotion Selection Number (PSN) of
516 incremented on 1 Sep 13; however, his Promotion Eligibility
Status (PES) code N (promotion nonrecommendation) was updated in
the system and his projected promotion line number was removed.
IAW AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 9, commanders have the authority
to nonrecommend members for promotion whom they feel are not ready
to assume the duties and responsibilities of the next higher rank.
If the member is nonrecommended for promotion on or after the
Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for a particular cycle,
(in this case, 31 Dec 12), then the member is ineligible for
promotion testing and consideration if already tested. It also
results in the cancellation of the PSN if previously selected.
The applicant separated under HYT, effective 17 Dec 13. In order
to be eligible for promotion consideration during cycle 14E6, he
would have had to have been on active duty as of the PECD which
was 31 Dec 13, as well as serving continuous active duty until the
effective date of promotion, 1 Aug 14. Promotion testing for
cycle 14E6 was not conducted until 1 Feb 31 Mar 14.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicants request to receive
full separation pay as a result of separating based on HYT
indicating there is no evidence of any errors or injustice in the
discharge process. Based on the procedural and substantive
requirements of the discharge regulation, the discharge was
processed in accordance with proper guidelines and he was given
the correct separation pay.
The applicant voluntarily requested separation after losing his
PSN to the grade of TSgt as a result of failing a physical fitness
assessment. He was non-recommended for promotion by his commander
due to the fitness failure. The applicant requested a separation
date of 16 Dec 13 and to still keep the HYT benefits associated
with separation under this condition. His request was approved
and his date of separation was set for 17 Dec 13.
IAW AFI 36-3208, the applicant was only entitled to ½ separation
pay on his HYT date, due to not being eligible for promotion.
Additionally, this was spelled out in the remarks section of the
applicants separation orders.
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 22 May 14 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit E). 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took
notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the
applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
basis to recommend granting the requested relief.
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-2014-00431 in Executive Session on 20 Nov 14 under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 3 Mar 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 1 May 14.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 May 14.
3
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03988
In a letter to the applicant dated 10 December 2013, AFPC/DPSID advised him that his first avenue of relief for his request to replace the 14 January 2012 EPR with the 4 July 2011 and 16 January 2012 electronic EPRs would be through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicant's record be corrected to reflect promotion to the rank of TSgt with a Date of Rank (DOR) and Promotion Effective Date (PED) of 1 May 2013. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03240
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends granting relief to change the RDP date and Given Under Hand date of the applicants 14 Nov 13 AFCM, indicating there is evidence of an error or injustice. It is recommended the Board grant the applicants request and determine an appropriate RDP...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00264
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00264 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. As a result of the failed FAs, his projected promotion to the grade of SSgt was cancelled and he received a referral EPR. Although DPSOE initially recommended denial of the applicants request to be supplementally considered for promotion to...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01617
DPSID was unable to verify an error or injustice exists in regard to the Report of Decoration Printout digital signature date on the applicants AM w/2 OLCs or AM w/3 OLCs nor were they able to verify an error or injustice with the AM w/1 OLCs. A complete copy of the DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants requests to include the decorations in the promotion process for cycle 13E6 as the decorations were not submitted until after selections...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 02775
________________________________________________________________ On 7 Jan 14, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) disapproved the applicants request for removal of his failed FAs from the AFFMS stating that he should have tested within the limits of his profile. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of the request for removal of the failed FAs dated 4 Apr 11 and 14 Nov 11 due to the lack of supporting...
AF | BCMR | CY2015 | BC 2015 00270
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00270 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to Active Duty (AD) and promoted to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt) with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Oct 14. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05120
Rule 5, Note 2, dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD and the date of the DECOR 6 must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03818
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03818 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) with an original date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 July 2010. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records, are contained...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02579
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, G and H. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends the applicants request to have his leave restored be granted. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request...