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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 ˝ separation pay on his HYT date, due to not being eligible for promotion. Additionally, this was spelled out in the remarks section of the applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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