RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02423 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Her date of separation (DOS) be changed from 30 Apr 12 to 28 Feb 14. 2. She be reinstated to the grade of chief master sergeant and reinstated to her previous position as Detachment 2 Superintendent. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her DOS should be extended based on her current assignment selection effective date of 15 Feb 10. 1. She applied, interviewed, and was selected for the superintendent position at HQ RMG/Det 2, Scott AFB, IL, effective 15 Feb 10. She was subsequently promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant (CMSgt) effect 1 Aug 10. Her current DOS of 30 Apr 12 did not allow her to fulfill the 2-year contract for time in grade (TIG) with regard to her reserve service commitment. 2. This is her second Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) assignment within the last 5 years. The superintendent position advertisement was a 4-year active duty tour. In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her assignment selection and other pertinent information with regard to her assignment. Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on an Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) tour as the Base Individual Mobilization Augmentee Administrator (BIMAA) at Scott AFB, IL, in the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8). The applicant was promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9) 1 Aug 10; however, she took a voluntary demotion in order to continue serving in the AGR Program. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial. The Readiness Management Group Commander (RMG/CC), the RMG Detachment 2 Program Manager, and the AFRC/A1A former superintendent thoroughly explained expectations associated with the applicant’s selection into her current position. In this regard, the main expectation was that if she chose to accept the CMSgt position, she would need to apply for and be selected for an assignment that was somewhere other than Scott AFB in order to remain in the AGR program. The specific reason for this decision was because the applicant had been assigned to Scott AFB for the last 12 years. The RMG leadership felt the need to increase her breadth of experience before being granted career AGR status. Furthermore, if the applicant had been granted career status while being assigned to the CMSgt position it would have meant that she could have remained at Scott AFB until 2019 when she becomes eligible for an active duty retirement. Additionally, Reserve Service Commitments (RSCs) can be served in any category of the Selected Reserves; therefore, she did not require an extension to her DOS as an AGR, but was required to serve 2-years from the date of rank to CMSgt. The complete AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by making the following key contentions: a. All AGR RMG superintendent positions have been and are still advertised and served out as 4-year tours. b. Although highly recommended by her supervisor, in Sep 09, she was denied career status by the AGR Assignment Review Board (ARB). c. There are a few superintendents within the RMG or the AGR program who have served 6 plus years in the same CMSgt position without moving and there are a couple of new selects who will be able to serve more years in their current positions/locations than she would have if retained as the Det 2 Superintendent. d. She has applied for 12 CMSgt positions and 3 SMSgt positions since Mar 11; however, she was only interviewed for 4 of the CMSgt positions and 1 of the SMSgt positions. e. In an effort to obtain stability of employment and to ensure that her career did not end abruptly, she contacted AFRC/A1A to get a better understanding of what her options were. She then applied for a SMSgt position as the Base Individual Mobilization Augmentee Administrator (BIMAA) at Scott AFB for which she was selected and accepted the new assignment. f. Her DOS has been adjusted to Oct 15 and although her personnel skills are above reproach, she fears that this situation may have stifled future opportunities for advancement. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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. After a thorough review of the available evidence, we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the applicant’s assertion that she was selected for the superintendent position and subsequently promoted to the grade of CMSgt and due to her selection for the superintendent position her date of separation should be changed to 28 Feb 14. According to AFRC/A1K, the applicant understood that if she chose to accept the CMSgt position, she would need to apply for and be selected for an assignment that was somewhere other than Scott AFB in order to remain in the AGR program. Leadership felt the need to increase her breadth of experience before granting career AGR status. The evidence of record indicates her leadership followed established procedures and policies. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we concur with the comments provided by the AFRC/A1K and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision in this case. In view of the above, we have no basis on which to favorably consider the applicant’s request. 4. 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 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-2011-02423 in Executive Session on 23 Feb 12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 3 Nov 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Jan 12.