RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-05156 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlistment dated 13 Jan 12 be reinstated to correct his Date of Separation (DOS)/Expiration Term of Service (ETS); His Post-9/11 GI Bill Transfer of Education Benefits (TEB) dated 2 Aug 12 be approved; Administratively Corrected The AF Form 964, PCS, TDY, Deployments, or Training Declination Statement, dated 2 Oct 14, be retracted to allow extension to re-qualify for Post-9/11 TEB. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 13 Jan 12, he reenlisted for five years and one week making his new ETS in 2017. His ETS was adjusted backward to 31 Jul 16 sometime in June 2012 due to changes in High Year Tenure (HYT) policy per Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) 11-110. He was an E-6 (TSgt) selected to promote to E-7 (MSgt) in November 2012 and the HYT changes were to take effect beginning Fiscal Year 13 (FY13). He was promoted 27 Nov 12, therefore he met the rank required before the effective HYT change date of FY13. The adjustment to HYT with the new ETS impacted his available benefits and career. On 3 Aug 12, he submitted application for Post-9/11 TEB but was told he needed to extend his enlistment in order to apply. Due to his HYT adjustment, he could not extend in order to be granted TEB, nor could he sign the TEB SOU. His local Force Support Squadron advised him to wait until his promotion date to extend due to the HYT adjustment. Because he did not sign the TEB Statement of Understanding (SOU), his application expired. Per AFI 36-2306, The Air Force Education Services Program, paragraph A9.18.1.3, he should have been granted TEB approval. His unjust HYT reduction caused his extension denial and disapproval of TEB. On 25 Aug 14, he was notified his assignment was identified as a surplus, meaning there was an overage in his career field ladder. Per AFI 36-2110, Assignments, paragraph 2.47.1, a Permanent Change of Station (PCS) is not normally justified when a surplus is projected to be resolved in six months or less. According to his career field ladder, manning at his base was not over-manned; there were 18 inbounds, two of which were MSgt’s and/or MSgt selects. In the term section of AFI 36-2110, surplus does not require assignment if there are no authorizations for the career field, which was not the case. Further, it explains an overage does not require assignment and is impractical under 133% manning in his career ladder, which was not the case either. On 12 Sep 14, he was notified of his enrollment in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP). He was working with the EFMP coordinator and his supervisor to submit an EFMP assignment deferment package, but did not receive final coordination until 19 Sep 14. On 30 Sep 14, the EFMP office approved him for family member travel. On 2 Oct 14 at 1515 hours, after cancelling his reenlistment extension and removing his TEB application, he signed the AF Form 964 declining retainability for his follow-on assignment. It was not until returning to his office afterward, that he received notification his EFMP deferment had already been processed earlier that day and his assignment was cancelled. Though he was notified on 2 Oct 14 of the assignment cancellation, the AF Form 964 processed through the system the day after, on 3 Oct 14. On 8 Oct 14, he was notified his assignment was cancelled due to the declination, not the EFMP deferment. He was notified on 6 Nov 14, his request to withdrawal the AF Form 964 was denied due to career field manning. From an Airman’s perspective, it is nearly impossible to know everything when faced with improper information. He did what he felt he could to meet everything within the 30 days allowed, but has now lost his TEB, reenlistment rights, promotion testing ability and respect from his leadership. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving on active duty as a Master Sergeant (MSgt)/E-7. On 11 Jun 13, he signed the Post-9/11 GI Bill TEB SOU. On 19 Jun 13, his AF Form 1411, Extension or Cancellation of Extensions of Enlistment in the Regular Air Force (REGAF)/Air Force Reserve (AF Reserve)/Air National Guard (ANG), was approved, extending his DOS from 31 Jul 16 to 31 May 17. On 2 Oct 14, he signed AF Form 964, declining his PCS assignment. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIT has provided administrative correction under the provisions of AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, updating the applicant’s TEB approval effective 2 Aug 12 with associated Obligation End Date to 10 Jul 16. The complete DPSIT evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s request for HYT adjustment to allow for TEB has already been accomplished. The system correctly reflects the HYT date for his current grade. The applicant was able to extend his DOS/ETS to apply for the TEB option. The applicant was promoted to the grade of Master Sergeant on 1 Nov 12, which extended his HYT to 24 years of service, per AFI 36-3203, Service Retirements, paragraph 2.21. His Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS) date is reflected as 10 Jul 96, placing his HYT for his current grade at 10 Jul 2020. 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 12 Aug 15 for review and comment within 30 days. The applicant responded on 21 Aug 15 indicating the DPSOR advisory opinion dated 29 Jul 15 stated his HYT was adjusted correctly, however; he states the OPR does not understand the change he is referring to. The PSDM 11-110 was dated 19 Dec 11 and notified members that HYT would be adjusted and go into effect in Sep 2013, yet he signed his reenlistment document 13 Jan 12 for a period of five years and one week. He was promoted to MSgt on 1 Nov 12 and his DOS/ETS was changed sometime between Jan 2012 and Jun 2012 to Jul 2016. He was selected for MSgt two months prior to AFPC’s change notification so he is not contesting his new HYT date since it is correct now. He is contesting that it was incorrect in 2012 when he applied for TEB. Further, the OPR suggests that the assignment declination curtailed his DOS/ETS from 2017 to 2016. With his application package, he submitted copies of his reenlistment extension request due to the curtailed DOS in order to satisfy the TEB four-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) requirement. He suggests if the declination remains valid, the DOS should be corrected to reflect 2017 at the time of signing instead of 2016. His desire is to prove the unjust correction of his DOS/ETS back in 2012 to 31 Jul 16, which has caused a chain of errors that destroyed his career and hinders him to this day. Instead, the DOS/ETS should be 12 Feb 17 and his Post-9/11 GI Bill TEB applied for 2 Aug 12 should be approved. In addition, the applicant states that he is “marked” by his supervision as non-promotable due to the retainability declination and his career advancement has stopped. He is now faced with another assignment notification however; he does not know if the previous declination was removed, corrected, withdrawn or is still in effect. His records do not show the assignment code of “09” for the declination but show a Promotion Eligibility Status (PES) code for ineligible due to the declination. Though he was told by his local Military Personnel Section (MPS) that the declination was withdrawn last year, the MPS is now saying it was overturned. He has been warned, ignored and denied his right to elect the 7-day option to elect retirement. His MPS informed him to accept permanent change of station or he cannot retire with his current DOS/ETS and that if he chooses to decline the assignment, he cannot retire. Lastly, the applicant insists that in 2014, his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) was marked down and included a poor promotion statement before being closed at the intermediate level by someone who was not in his squadron for most of the reporting period. He states he was non-recommended for a Meritorious Service Medal, not allowed stratification, not given endorsement and not allowed to test for the 15E8 promotion cycle. With his next promotion cycle coming up, there is no time to recover and have a fair chance at a better career. The complete Applicant evaluation 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 an error or injustice warranting correction of the applicant’s records to adjust HYT to allow for Post-9/11 TEB. We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include his rebuttal and all attachments, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. In this respect, the applicant’s request for HYT date adjustment was already accomplished with his promotion to Master Sergeant effective 1 Nov 12, extending his HYT to 24 years of service on 10 Jul 20. Based on the new HYT date, he was able to extend his enlistment and apply and receive TEB thus resolving his contention to change his DOS/ETS and retract his AF Form 964. We note AFPC/DPSIT has provided administrative correction to the TEB system, updating it to reflect approval for the applicant’s TEB application effective 2 Aug 12. The applicant alluded to other issues in his rebuttal, in that respect we recommend the applicant attempt to resolve those matters through existing personnel processes, and if unsuccessful, he may wish to then appeal those new contentions to the AFBCMR at a later date. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting relief beyond that rendered administratively. 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 documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-05156 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIT, dated 9 Jan 15. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 Jul 15. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Aug 15. 1 2