RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-03210
		INDEX CODE: 131.09
		COUNSEL:  NONE
		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her promotion eligibility status (PES) code "C" be removed and changed to "X" to make her eligible for promotion and allow her to pin-on technical sergeant (E-6).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She tested for technical sergeant and was selected; however, she did not realize that by declining retraining she would become ineligible for promotion.  She was unclear of the ineligibility guidance for members that were already selected for promotion when she signed the AF IMT 964 (PCS, TDY, or Training Declination Statement).  

In support of her request, the applicant provided a copy of the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) Score Notice, a copy of a printout, and a letter from her commander and superintendent.

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) indicates the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of staff sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 July 2002.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is          11 February 1998.

_
________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  DPSOE states that when the applicant declined retraining the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) was updated with a PES Code "C" which identifies career airman who decline retraining and makes them ineligible for promotion.  Per AFI 36-2626 (Airman Retraining Program) airman who decline retraining will not receive supplemental promotion consideration for any cycle for which they were ineligible under these guidelines and promotion is not authorized.

DPSOE states the AF IMT 964 specifically provides the ineligibility for promotion statement in paragraph 1a(2) of the form.  The applicant had a projected promotion at the time she signed the form; she needed to stay eligible for promotion, but by signing the form she became ineligible and could not be promoted to technical sergeant.

The complete DPSOE evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She provides a personal letter which refers to an NCO Retraining Program Memorandum which was signed by herself and her Commander.  Paragraph B of the memorandum caused confusion, which she blames for her decision to decline retraining; the paragraph states that she will be ineligible for promotion, the promotion test will not be scored and if the test was erroneously scored, her name will be removed from the select list.

Her complete submission, with attachment, 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.  We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, the Board majority finds no evidence of an error in this case and is not persuaded by the applicant's assertions, that she has been the victim of an injustice.  In this respect, the Board majority notes that the AF IMT 964 signed by the applicant clearly states that by voluntarily declining retraining she understood that she would be ineligible for promotion for the remainder of her enlistment.  Notwithstanding the support and recommendations of her supervisor and commander, absent evidence that the applicant was treated different than similarly situated individuals, the Board majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts its rationale as the basis for their conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2008-03210 in Executive Session on 18 November 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member
	XXXXXXXXXX, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the request.       XXXXXXXXXX voted to correct the record and did not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 August 2008, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 8 September 2008, w/atchs.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 September 2008.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, 2 October 2008.

								XXXXXXXXXX
								Panel Chair