RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-01075
	             INDEX CODE 110.03 131.03  100.06
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reinstated to active duty with back pay and allowances, minus collected retirement pay; given a new date of separation (DOS) of 31 Jan 05 or two years from date of reinstatement; afforded the opportunity to test for promotion to senior master sergeant (SMSgt) for cycle 03E8, or immediate promotion; and assigned to a new permanent duty station.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The unfair actions by his supervisor, first sergeant, squadron commander and operations group commander denied him enlistment extension and forced him to retire. He was informed that his leadership style was outdated and caused discontentment among the airmen. He was removed from his position. Abuse of discretionary authority denied him an extension of enlistment. He believes he was not given a chance to change because no change he made would have been acceptable. He was not allowed to hear or read any statements his subordinates may have made. The total absence of either written or verbal documentation or verification prior to 10 Jan 03 makes his supervisor’s comments suspect.

The applicant’s complete submission, including personal statement, 19 attachments, and a supplemental statement, is at Exhibit A. 

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 30 Jan 79 and was ultimately promoted to master sergeant (MSgt). During the period in question, the applicant was the Aircrew Life Support Flight superintendent with the XX Operations Support Squadron at Altus AFB, OK. His supervisor/rater was the flight commander; the additional rater was the squadron commander.

His Senior Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) beginning with 11 Jun 96 are all “firewalled” and reflect the following ratings:

				PERIOD ENDING	OVERALL EVALUATION
				 10 Jun 97		5
				 10 Jun 98		5
				 10 Jun 99		5
				 10 Mar 00		5
				 15 Feb 01		5
				 15 Feb 02		5
				 30 Jan 03         Supplemental Evaluation Sheet (SES)
                             (outstanding performance)

The applicant received the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) for the 9 Aug 96 to 30 Sep 99 timeframe on 18 Oct 99, and the MSM, 1st Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC,) for the 24 Jun 00 to 31 Jan 03 timeframe on 21 Nov 02. The squadron commander also nominated him in 2000 and 2001 for Aircrew Life Support Outstanding Senior NCO of the Year for both the Air Education and Training Command and HQ Air Force levels.

On 5 Feb 02, the applicant requested retirement effective 1 Feb 03, which was his High Year of Tenure (HYT) of 24 years for his grade. His request was approved by the squadron commander on 8 Feb 02 and by Special Order AC-000443 on 9 Oct 02. 

However, HQ AFPC/DPP message dated 27 Dec 02 provided implementation instructions extending the HYT for senior airmen (SRA), technical sergeant (TSgt), MSgt, and senior master sergeant (SMSgt) with HYT dates on or after 1 Jan 03. The new HYT for MSgt was now 26 years. The HYT for SMSgt was now 28 years.

Sometime around 6 Jan 03, the applicant apparently requested to remain on active duty in accordance with the new HYT guidelines.

On 10 Jan 02 [sic], the flight commander did not recommend the applicant for reenlistment on AF Form 418, Selective Reenlistment Program Consideration. The flight commander stated the applicant’s dictatorial, abrasive, confrontational and tactless leadership style resulted in poor morale throughout the flight. The flight commander indicated he recommended the applicant for the MSM and wrote the favorable SES at the applicant’s request and to facilitate post-service employment. The commander did not address a complaint against the applicant in May 02 for improper comments to a subordinate, which was largely resolved based on his impending retirement. He claimed three other subordinates threatened not to reenlist if the applicant returned.

On 10 Jan 03, the squadron commander concurred with the flight commander, indicating the applicant was unwilling to adapt his leadership style. He claimed this resulted in an “unfortunate minor indiscretion” which negatively impacted morale. 

The applicant signed the AF Form 418 on 10 Jan 03 and, on 14 Jan 03, also indicated he intended to appeal. AFI 36-2606 states that the appeal authority for individuals like the applicant with more than 20 years of service would be his group commander.

On 16 Jan 03, the applicant submitted his appeal to the group commander. The flight commander rebutted the applicant’s appeal on 27 Jan 03. The applicant provided a second statement on 30 Jan 03. 

On 30 Jan 03, the applicant also requested his approved retirement be withdrawn, which was approved by Special Order AC-005464 on 31 Jan 03.

According to HQ AFPC/DPPRRP (Exhibit E), the applicant was granted a 30-day extension to his HYT pending the results of his appeal of his denied reenlistment. However, the group commander did not receive the appeal package until 14 Feb 03. In the meantime, on 11 Feb 03, the applicant again requested retirement effective 1 Mar 03, his extended HYT. His request was approved by Special Order AC-006438 on 19 Feb 03. 

The applicant retired on 1 Mar 03 in the grade of MSgt after 24 years, 1 month and 1 day of active service. 

Based on HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s advisory (Exhibit E), the group commander’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) contacted the HQ AFPC retirements section to advise that the group commander was going to complete the AF Form 418. HQ AFPC/DPPRRP advised the MPF that the completion of AF Form 418 was overtaken by the applicant’s 1 Mar 03 retirement. 

On 9 Apr 03, the group commander indicated on the AF Form 418 that the appeal did not reach his office until 14 Feb 03. Upon hearing of the applicant’s approved retirement, he returned the appeal to the MPF without action. Per direction of the AFPC retirements section, he was now approving the applicant’s appeal as he would have done on 14 Feb 03 if the applicant had not elected to retire.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises the applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration for cycle 03E8 because he was denied reenlistment. To be eligible for promotion consideration for cycle 03E8, members must have a DOS or retirement date of 1 Apr 03 or later. They recommend against direct promotion. If the applicant is   reinstated, recommend he be supplementally considered for promotion for cycle 03E8, if he is otherwise eligible and recommended by his commander.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPAE notes that if the applicant had not retired, he would have been selected for reenlistment by the appeal authority. The applicant’s request should be approved. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

HQ AFPC/DPPRRP makes no recommendation since there were no errors or injustices, but would impose no objection to the applicant being reinstated.

A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 1 Aug 03 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant reinstating the applicant and offering him supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of SMSgt. After carefully weighing all the available evidence, we are persuaded that the denial of reenlistment by the flight and squadron commanders was questionable at best and unsubstantiated at worst. Most importantly, the group commander approved the applicant’s reenlistment appeal. Unfortunately, the appeal package did not reach the group commander until after the applicant was required to retire because of his HYT and unjust reenlistment ineligibility. We therefore recommend he be reinstated and allowed to reenlist for a period of two years, as he requested, and afforded supplemental promotion consideration, rather than direct promotion, to the grade of SMSgt beginning with cycle 03E8. 

4.	The applicant’s assignment request was noted.  However, when favorable consideration of an appeal by the Board restores an applicant to active duty status, authorities at HQ AFPC complete all assignment actions in accordance with long-established procedures. These authorities are in the best position to assess the needs of the service and the qualifications of the individual concerned.  While attempts may be made to accommodate the desires of the member, the needs of the service are of paramount consideration in determinations of this nature. Therefore, this portion of applicant’s appeal is denied.

5.	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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was not released from the Regular Air Force on 28 February 2003 and retired for length of service on 1 March 2003 in the grade of master sergeant, but on that date he reenlisted for a period of two years and was ordered permanent change of station to his home of record (home of selection) pending further orders.

It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 03E8.

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the individual ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's qualification for the promotion.

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 10 September 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01075 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 03, and Supplemental 
                  Statement dated 23 Apr 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 8 Apr 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 18 Jul 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 24 Jul 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Aug 03.

                                   
                                   Chair

AFBCMR BC-2003-01075

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to    , be corrected to show that that he was not released from the Regular Air Force on 28 February 2003 and retired for length of service on 1 March 2003 in the grade of master sergeant, but on that date he reenlisted for a period of two years and was ordered permanent change of station to his home of record (home of selection) pending further orders.

	It is further directed that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 03E8.

	If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered the individual ineligible for the promotion, such information will be documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's qualification for the promotion.

	If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date.

                                                                          
                                                                          Director
                                                                          Air Force Review Boards Agency