RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03872 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 964, PCS, TDY, Deployments, or Training Declination Statement, be declared void and removed from his records, and his promotion to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) be reinstated. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was misinformed by his Commander’s Support Staff (CSS) on the impact of his signing the AF Form 964, violating AFI 36-2606, Reenlistment in the United States Air Force, paragraph 5.12, the Informed Decision Program. The CSS told him signing the AF Form 964 would not affect his line number for TSgt, only future testing and promotion. The CSS tried to rescind the AF Form 964 five months after the fact, without success. In addition, his AF Form 964 was not signed by his Career Assistance Advisor (CAA), causing the form to be invalid. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant served in the Regular Air Force in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5) during the period of time in question. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C and F. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of his request for promotion reinstatement indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to TSgt during cycle 11E6; however, when he signed the AF Form 964, he became ineligible for promotion and his line number was removed. a career airman who was selected for promotion but declines to extend or reenlist to obtain retainability for a controlled assignment, PCS, TDY, or retraining on or after the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) for a particular cycle becomes ineligible for promotion consideration in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Demotion Programs. Further, the declination statement, which he signed, states “I have read the rules in AFI 36-2502 and AFI 36- 2606 pertaining to loss of reenlistment and promotion eligibility and I understand that I am ineligible for promotion for the remainder of my enlistment.” When the applicant signed this form, he acknowledged the loss of promotion eligibility. Additionally, the form clearly states it is not to be signed without complete understanding of its effect on one’s career. The applicant’s claim of miscounseling has not been substantiated based on the documentation provided. It is ultimately the applicant’s responsibility to know his promotion eligibility status. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends the signed AF Form 964 and the AFI that governs this process clearly state that a CAA has to sign for non-first term airmen. This single fact requires the form be nullified (Exhibit E). ________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the AF Form 964 indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. The signature block for the CAA to sign the AF Form 964 is only an added layer of keeping the member informed of the repercussions of signing the AF Form 964. The fact that the CAA did not sign the applicant’s AF Form 964 does not make the form invalid. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAPP evaluation is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 19 Apr 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit G). ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, including his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. While we note the applicant’s contention he was miscounseled, he has provided no evidence or verification of miscounseling other than his own assertions. The applicant voluntarily signed the AF Form 964 affirming he read the AFI paragraphs listed on the form which notify members they will not be eligible for promotion after signing the document. In addition, although the applicant contends his AF Form 964 is invalid because the CAA did not sign it, there is no regulatory requirement for the CAA to sign the form and thus the lack of a CAA signature does not invalidate the form. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 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 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-2012-03872 in Executive Session on 23 May 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03872 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Aug 12, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 Sep 12. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Nov 12. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Dec 12, w/atch. Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPAPP, dated 9 Apr 13. Exhibit G. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Apr 13.