RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00479 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His service commitment be extended to allow him the required two years of retainability to allow his promotion to chief master sergeant. 2. As an alternative, his effective date of promotion to chief master sergeant be backdated to March 2012 or July 2012. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In February 2012, he was notified that he was selected for a chief master sergeant Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) position. After some administrative delays in processing, he was officially placed in the position on 5 March 2012. Shortly after being placed in the position, he inquired about his promotion and was informed that he had to complete the required Professional Military Education (PME) Air For Reserve Command Chief Orientation Course (COC) prior to promotion. Administrative delays in processing his request to attend the April 2012 COC led to him attending the course in June 2012. After completion of the course, he inquired about his promotion and was informed that after completing the checklist to process his promotion, they discovered there was an administrative error. In calculating his service retainability, his records indicated that he lacked the required two years retainability for promotion, in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airmen Promotion/Demotion Programs. He reviewed the AFI and discovered it was not applicable to the Air Force Reserve and National Guard personnel. When he informed the unit, he was told they mistakenly referenced the wrong regulation; they should have referenced AFRCI 26-2106. AFRCI 36-2106 indicates when a service member who does not have the minimum two year service retainability is selected for promotion; the service member must either obtain the retainability by reenlisting or, extending their enlistment to meet the requirement. The regulation further states if the member cannot obtain the retainability, they are required to submit a Reserve Service Commitment letter or a Promotion Retainability Waiver Request to facilitate the promotion. He was advised that although AFI 36-2502 had provisions for extending high year tenure, obtaining the extension would be too difficult; therefore, he requested a waiver. He waited until 4 December 2012 in anticipation of the notification of promotion and was informed the waiver was returned. He contacted the Air Force Reserve Command on 4 January 2013 and was told that they did not accept waivers. He was also informed that his promotion waiver request was not accepted for coordination because previous service members whose waivers were accepted and approved subsequently failed to meet standards. This is an unofficial policy and contradicts AFRCI 36-2106 that allows for waivers to be accepted properly coordinated to facilitate the selection for best qualified candidates that lack the 2 year retainability. He has dedicated his life to government service. This has caused him a great deal of stress and anxiety and public embarrassment. It is an honor to serve and make contributions in developing new policies; however, the reason for accepting to position was promotion. He would have never willingly accepted a lateral transfer from his previous position which was 12 miles away from his home into a position that is 600 miles away. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, e-mail correspondence, referenced AFI’s and his waiver request. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a member of the Air Force Reserves serving in the grade of senior master sergeant. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial. The applicant alleges the mandatory Air Force Reserve promotion instruction was not followed and as such he and the selection authority were not notified of the proper retainability requirements for his selection for promotion. This alleged oversight delayed and withheld his promotion to chief master sergeant. Air Force Reserve enlisted members are promoted in accordance with AFPD 36-25 and Air Reserve Promotion Policy. Under the provisions of the Air Force Enlisted Promotion Policy, individuals must have: 9-skill level in their primary Air Force Specialty Code, 24-months’ time in grade, 14 years of satisfactory service for retirement, completed the AF Reserve Chief Orientation Course, a satisfactory participant in accordance with AFI 36-2254V1, Reserve Personnel Participation, met Air Force physical fitness standards and be able to obtain 24 months retainability to be eligible for promotion to chief master sergeant. The individual must be recommended by the assigned supervisor and approved by the promotion authority. The applicant alleges that delays in processes as well as ARPC and another unit not following the mandatory instruction AFRCI 36-2106 caused his promotion to chief master sergeant be withheld. After a careful review of the documents provided by the applicant, it was discovered that he was unable to obtain the 24 months retainability (required for promotion consideration) at the time he submitted his application on 12 December 2011. With an October 2013 high year tenure date, he could only obtain 22 months retainability when he applied for the position and only 20 months retainability at the time when he was gained into the position in March 2012. Reserve members who are unable to obtain the required retainability are considered ineligible for promotion and this criterion is not waiverable. Lastly, there is no AFRCI 36-2106 to follow. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reiterates that he has dedicated his life to government service. He states the advisory is misleading by indicating that his placement was based on his reassignment request and not merit. Air Force Reserve members are placed in upgrade positions when they are determined to meet the requirements for promotion to the authorized grade. Prior to selection for the position, the unit reviewed his records, to include his servicer retainability. His unit knew that he had 22 months retainability when they selected him for the position. He is now being unjustly denied his earned promotion. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that he is entitled to the relief he seeks. His contentions are duly noted; however, he has not provided persuasive evidence to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR). Therefore, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the OPR and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant was unable to obtain the required retainability of 24 months due to his high year tenure in accordance with AFRCI 36-2102 Table 1.1.2; therefore, he was ineligible for promotion to chief master sergeant. Additionally, while the applicant contends his high year tenure date extension waiver was not properly considered, the evidence submitted shows that his request was disapproved by the commander. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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-2013-00479 in Executive Session on 24 October 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Jan 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 21 May 13. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jul 13. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant’s Response, undated, w/atchs. 1 2