RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00741
		INDEX CODE:  131.09

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His promotion to the grade of technical sergeant be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His line number for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant was rescinded without his knowledge due to a faulty briefing at the Military Personnel Flight (MPF).  He was not properly advised that he would lose his line number if he declined to obtain permanent change of station (PCS) retainability for his assignment to Korea.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, documentation pertaining to his request for reinstatement of his promotion, including an electronic mail (e‑mail) response to the applicant from the Inspector General (IG).

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Apr 99.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 10 Jun 92.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAAD indicated that AFI 36-2110, Paragraph 2.29.6.3, requires a member who refuses to get PCS retainability to sign an AF Form 964 (PCS, TDY, or Training Declination Statement).  The applicant executed the AF Form 964 and the assignment was cancelled and his promotion line number was taken away.  He alleges he was not properly briefed that signing an AF Form 964 would result in his line number being removed.

AFPC/DPAAD noted that the 21st Space Wing IG investigated the applicant's allegations and confirmed that he was not properly counseled regarding the signing of AF Form 964.  The IG also determined that the applicant bore the responsibility to ask questions when executing the AF Form 964.  The statement contained in the AF Form 964 the applicant had to sign clearly states “I understand that I am ineligible for promotion for the remainder of my enlistment including any extension already approved.”  In AFPC/DPAAD's view, his signature on the bottom of the AF Form 964 indicated his full understanding of each of the items on the form.  If he was unclear of the impact on his line number, he was obligated to inquire at that time.

According to AFPC/DPAAD, the applicant came on line in Nov 02 and requested his PCS declination be removed.  The assignment office of primary responsibility (OPR) removed the declination and provided the applicant with another assignment to Korea (which was the condition of declination removal).  In Feb 03, the applicant again declined to get retainability for this assignment and executed another AF Form 964, resulting in the cancellation of the assignment.  The issue of reinstatement of the promotion line number rests with AFPC/DPP.  However, based on the second declination with full knowledge of the ramifications, it's apparent the applicant does not desire to go where the Air Force needs him but still wants the pay and associated benefits of being a technical sergeant.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAAD evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial.  They noted that the applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 01E6 per Promotion Sequence Number (PSN) 11866.0, which would have incremented on 1 Jul 02.  He signed an AF Form 964 on 31 May 02 which rendered him ineligible for promotion consideration.  In Nov 02, he requested the declination be removed, was provided another assignment, and in Feb 03 again declined to get retainability and executed another AF Form 964.

AFPC/DPPPWB indicated that if on or after the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for a particular cycle, a career airman declines to extend or reenlist to obtain service retainability for a controlled assignment, PCS, TDY, and retraining, he or she becomes ineligible for promotion consideration as outlined in AFI 3 6-2502, Table 1.1, Rule 3.  The applicant stated that his MPF failed to inform him that he would lose his promotion line number to technical sergeant if he declined to get PCS retainability for his assignment to Korea.  An IG investigation confirmed that he was not properly counseled regarding the signing of AF Form 964.  They also determined that the applicant bore the responsibility to ask questions when executing the AF Form 964.  The declination statement, which he signed in agreement to, states “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, and verifies that he has read the rules in the applicable directives.  Finally, the form clearly states it is not to be signed without a complete understanding of its effect on one’s career.  In AFPC/DPPPWB's view, the applicant made a conscious decision to decline the retainability for the assignment knowing the consequences of his decision; i.e., loss of both promotion and reenlistment eligibility.  This action canceled his projected promotion to the grade of technical sergeant that was to be effective 1 Jul 02.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that regarding the AF Form declination statement, he would like to reiterate that he was under the impression that he would be ineligible for further promotion testing and would not lose the promotion line number he already achieved.  Nowhere on the form does it state that line numbers would be rescinded, and the MPF personnel never indicated to him that this would occur.  He resents the insinuation that he refused to abide by Air Force needs and still wants to reap the benefits of the rank.  He maintains that the MPF did not fulfill their duties to properly inform him of the facts, and that the timing of his orders was manipulated to cheat him out of a promotion.

Applicant's complete 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 error or injustice.  The applicant's complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were duly noted.  However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions or the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs).  Therefore, in the absence of evidence that he was treated differently from similarly situated individuals, we agree with the recommendation of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find no compelling 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 material 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-2003-00741 in Executive Session on 8 Jul 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPAAD, dated 25 Mar 03.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Apr 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 May 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 12 May 03.

                                   
                                   Chair