RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03497 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 2014 Enlisted Retention Board (ERB) decision to involuntary separate him be reversed and he be directed back onto Active Duty. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: During the administration of the 2014 ERB, he was in the middle of a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) move. He out-processed Travis AFB, California on 31 Jan 14 and in-processed Fort Sam Houston, Texas on 14 Feb 14. He had no prior knowledge that he was eligible for or even being considered for the ERB until he received an involuntary separation notice from his squadron commander on 29 Jul 14. According to Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 13-129, FY14 Enlisted Retention Boards for Senior Airman (SrA) thru Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt), dated 23 Dec 13 (Amended 2 Jun 14), Airmen eligible to meet the Retention Board would be notified by personal electronic mail through the virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF) on/or about 27 Dec 13. This notification did not take place. After he arrived at his new duty location, he started to hear more and more regarding the ERB. When he inquired with both past and present leadership regarding his status, they did not seem to know. He was led to believe that he was not being considered and therefore required to take no action. On 29 Jul 14, he received involuntary separation paperwork from his unit commander. He was completely taken unaware as he never received an Enlisted Retention Recommendation Form (ERRF) nor was he given the opportunity to review his records for accuracy or write a letter on his behalf. On 31 Jul 14, he finally received a copy of his ERRF. The form failed to capture anything positive from his career and the information was just cut and pasted from his 29 Jan 14 EPR. In accordance with PSDM 13-129, it states that ERB would consider records from 1 Dec 13 and prior. While he acknowledges receiving a Letter of Reprimand (LOR), an Unfavorable Information File (UIF), and a 4 EPR while assigned to Travis AFB, these actions took place after the 1 Dec 13 window of eligibility. Finally, he believes he was improperly stratified amongst his peers. He was stratified #3 of 3 TSgts at Travis. He contends the reason for this was because he had already PCSed and they were trying to preserve the manning levels at Travis. When comparing the two records the TSgt that received the #2 of 3 received a referral EPR with an LOR from the Sq/CC for falsifying official documents. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 8 Apr 03. On 23 Dec 13 (Amended 2 Jun 14), the Air Force published and distributed Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 13-129, which announced the FY2014 Enlisted Retention Boards for Senior Airman (SrA) through Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt). a. The PSDM 13-129 provided detailed instructions for Military Personnel Flights, Senior Raters, Unit Commanders and Airmen regarding the eligibility and procedures for the above mentioned programs. The PSDM also listed key dates and eligibility criteria. FY14 Enlisted Retention Board for SrA through TSgt was scheduled to convene 16 Jun - 25 Jul 14. b. SrA through TSgts who were in over manned AFSCs and had a Date of Rank of 1 Jan 13 or earlier were eligible for consideration by the ERB. On or about 27 Dec 13, the eligible Airmen meeting the Retention Boards were notified by personal E-mail through the virtual MPF. a. Airmen were reminded to review their records and to correct any errors or omissions before the board convening date of 16 Jun 14. Corrections must be made NLT 30 May 14 to ensure inclusion in the record reviewed by the board. Also, Airmen were provided the opportunity to write letters to the board when circumstances exist that require clarification of the information contained in their records or to explain missing information from the official record. As such, records reviewed by the Retention boards were considered accurate at the time of review; therefore, there are no processes for Airmen to appeal the Board’s decision. b. According to PSDM, Airmen may correspond to the board to address any matter of record they believe merits consideration. Letters must be submitted in good faith and contain accurate information to the best of the Airman’s knowledge and must be “wet” signed by the Airman. Letters submitted to the bard may not be more than 1 single-sided page. c. According to attachment 6, of PSDM 13-129; Enlisted Retention Recommendation Form (ERRF) and Accounting Date Instructions for FY14 Enlisted Retention Board (SrA thru TSgt), provided detailed instructions on how to process the ERRFs. Unit Commanders were to provide eligible Airmen a copy of their ERRF no earlier than 17 May 14 and no later than 15 days prior to the board convening. Airman that did not receive an ERRF 30 days prior to the Board, were instructed to contact their Unit Commander for status. The ERRF Accounting date was 17 Jan 14. On this date, AFPC matched each eligible Airman to the unit commander who would be responsible for preparing the ERRF. The earliest date Unit Commander could provide ERRF to Airmen was 17 May 14. The cutoff date for Airman to submit letters to the board was 5 Jun 14. The FY14 Enlisted Retention Board for SrA through TSgt convened between 16 Jun - 25 Jul 14. On 31 Jan 15, the applicant was furnished an Honorable discharge and credited with 11 years, 9 months, and 24 days of active service. The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, reflects he was released from active duty with a narrative reason for separation as “reduction in force”. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. A review of the applicant’s personnel records reflects that his record met the ERB and he was not selected for continued retention and based on his non-selection was given a mandatory separation date of 31 Jan 15. While the applicant contends his unit failed to notify him of his eligibility for the ERB, which resulted in him losing out on the opportunity to provide a statement on his behalf. They are not in a position to address those elements of the applicant’s complaint; specifically, the circumstances that occurred within the confines of his former unit prior to his records meeting the ERB. With regards to the applicant’s stratification, that decision was made by the applicant’s chain of command and notification to the applicant of his completed ERRF was the responsibility of his unit. Based on the documentation provided by the applicant’s unit at the time of the ERB, the applicant’s record was considered and reviewed accordingly. Therefore, they must conclude that the ERB accurately made an informed decision regarding the applicant’s retention status. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that AFPC must be confused on what exactly happened in his case, which is why they recommended denial of his reinstatement. He was falsely led to believe that he was safe from consideration and did not have to worry about being retained in the Air Force. He recounts the requirements of PSDM 13-129 and the fact the Air Force failed to notify him of his vulnerability, his previous unit’s failure to properly stratify the assigned airmen under their consideration, and his previous unit’s failure to clarify his status when he inquired via E-mail in Apr 14. He also contends that when his records met the Board, they were not accurate. They incorrectly reflected an Unfavorable Information File which was destroyed by his squadron commander three days prior to the Board convening. He did everything in his power to get answers and resolve this issue through every possible avenue. The biggest fact that cannot be ignored is that Air Force leadership failed one of its members by not completing the duties that were assigned to them by the Secretary of the Air Force. Airmen put their lives, families, health and well-being on the line to obey the orders of the officers appointed over them. The least that he expected was to get the proper information from his leadership in a timely fashion. He finds it hard to fathom that his 11-year career was of no importance to any leader within his chain of command, because if it had been, he would have been afforded his due process and given the proper information when required. The applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is located 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 an error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal comments, the Board is not persuaded that a change in the record is warranted. The Board noted the applicant’s contention that his unit failed to notify him of his eligibility for the ERB, which resulted in him losing the opportunity to provide a statement on his behalf. While it appears the PSDM does provide the opportunity for Airman to write letters to the board, it does not guarantee that fact. However, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the applicant was able to write a letter to the board, it is impractical to believe it would have mitigated their decision to separate him based on the ERRF provided by his Commander. Finally, with regards to his stratification; that decision was made by his Commander and it is not for this Board to question. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant’s records were appropriately considered by the ERB in accordance with the guidelines set forth in PSDM 13-129. 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-2014-03497 in Executive Session on 21 Jul 15 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03497 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 22 Sep 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Feb 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Mar 15.