RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-04055

               	          COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her separation date of 30 November 2015 be changed back to 6 June 2016.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her extension of 19 months to November 2014 to accept promotion to Senior Master Sergeant was in error and should have been only to 30 Apr 15.

She was told by AFPC in June 2014, she could stay on active duty until her High Year of Tenure (HYT) in October 16.

In July 2015, her DOS changed from 6 June 2016 to 30 November 2015 after she requested to extend her retirement date to 1 May 2016.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 12 October 1990, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force. 

On 7 July 2011, the applicant, in the grade master sergeant, re-enlisted for 3 years and 4 months with a new Date of Separation (DOS) of 6 November 2014.

On 1 March 2013, the applicant signed a Promotion Statement of Understanding, whereby she accepted her promotion to Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) and the 3-year Active Duty Service commitment (ADSC) from the date of promotion. 

On 18 April 2013, the applicant extended her DOS of 6 November 2014 for 19 months for the purpose of having the retainability for promotion to SMSgt. As a result the applicant’s new date of separation was set at 6 Jun 16.

On 1 May 2013, the applicant was promoted to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant.

On 3 June 2014, the applicant declined to obtain the additional two months of retainability necessary to meet the 2-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) for assignment to Lackland AFB with assignment action reporting August 2014.  
	  
An extract taken from AFI36-2110, Assignments, paragraph 2.29.6.6: Retainability Declination, Enlisted Airmen with 19 years TAFMS or more, states: When CONUS-assigned enlisted Airmen (only) have 19 years or more TAFMS as of the month and year of PCS notification, and lack the minimum required PCS retainability and decline to obtain it, then the AF will establish an involuntary DOS for them as shown below:   Paragraph 2.29.6.6.2. The last day of the month in which an ADSC expires. Thus, this rule would make the applicant’s retirement date effective 1 May 2015. 

On 30 November 2015, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 25 years, one months, and 19 days of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit C and E.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3AM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant’s retirement date was established in accordance with AFI 36-2110.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3AM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5 Oct 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP3ST acknowledges the applicant’s extension in April 2013 was for more months than required; however, it was a valid extension but the extension, by itself, had no effect on her retirement date established in accordance with assignment policy in AFI-36-2110.  When the applicant completed the extension in April 2013 for 19 months she already knew her promotion effective date was 1 May 2013 and she needed two years of retainability for promotion. In this case the correct extension was for five months.  We do not know if it was a mistake on the personnel office or the request of applicant to extend for 19 months, however, she agreed to the extension and it met (exceeded) the retainability requirements.  

The applicant’s contentions are not with the length of her extension, but with her DOS/retirement date being established as 30 November 2015.  Per the AFPC Assignments advisory this action is correct and was taken in accordance with their guidance.  The 19 month extension had no bearing on her DOS/retirement date being established as 30 November 2015.  Regardless of how far out her DOS (established under our guidance) was, the assignment guidance (if applicable) could have established an earlier DOS as appropriate for declining to obtain the required retainability for reassignment.        

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP3AST evaluation is at Exhibit E.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 Dec 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit F).  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 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.  Although there may have been an administrative error regarding the length of the applicant’s initial extension to satisfy her retainability due to promotion, ultimately, the applicant’s retirement date was properly established according to governing instructions and with sufficient time-in-grade to allow the applicant to retire in her current grade of senior master sergeant.  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-2015-04055 in Executive Session on 26 Jan 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-04055 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3AM dated 16 Sep 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Oct 16.
     Exhibit E.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP3ST, 1 Dec 16.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Dec 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.