RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03495 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His name be removed from the Enlisted Retention Board (ERB) and he remain in the Air Force. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Personnel enter (AFPC) had incorrect data for his Remotely Piloted Aircraft Basic Sensor Operator Course (BSOC) dates. He was the only one who was not removed from consideration on the ERB while all other Staff Sergeants (SSgt) from his same class were removed from ERB consideration. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 7 Aug 01. According to the applicant, he applied to retrain into the critically manned Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), Remotely Piloted Aircraft Sensor Operator (1U0X1) and was selected on 3 Aug 12. He graduated from the BSOC course on 5 Oct 12 and then went on to Initial Qualifying Training (IQT) and completed that on 24 Jun 13. According to the applicant, he was notified in Dec 2013 his career field was over manned. On 31 Jan 15, the applicant was discharged with an honorable characterization of service and was credited with 13 years, 5 months, and 24 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 Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. PSDM 13-129, Attachment One, indicates exclusion for not meeting the ERB as airmen who "have retrained within the past year (1 Jan 13) or have approved retraining prior to the board convening date." The Date Initially Entered Retraining (DIERT) was the criterion used to establish whether or not an airman will be excluded from meeting the ERB. In order to exclude an airman in retraining status from meeting the ERB, the DIERT would need to be on or after 1 Jan 13. In the applicant's case, his DIERT was 3 Aug 12 and since this date is prior to 1 Jan 13, he was not eligible for exclusion from meeting the ERB. Therefore, his record meeting the ERB was correct and in accordance with directives. The applicant contends that others who were in the same class that he was in were excluded from ERB consideration while he was not, making his meeting the ERB unjust. There were 36 individuals inadvertently left off the final eligibility list for the ERB. Since these 36 exclusions could have impacted the overall order of merit, HQ AFPC developed several recommendations to provide relief. The Secretary of the Air Force decided that: Airmen from the affected Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) who already met the board and who were selected for retention would not be affected. Their retention status was secure. The 36 Airmen who did not meet the board would not be subject to this board. HQ AFPC determined there were 50 Airmen not selected for retention who should be allowed to request withdrawal of their ERB-directed separation based upon the exclusion of these 36 records. This course of action had HQ AFPC include the 36 excluded Airmen at the bottom of their respective Order of Merit from their respective boards and apply 36 additional retention quotas (based upon how many were added to the bottom of each pool). Unfortunately, even with applying these new retention quotas to the applicant's AFSC/Grade pool, his record did not score well enough to earn one of the additional retention quotas. Therefore, the applicant's non selection for retention remains firm. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/JA recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The applicant's record was appropriately considered by the ERB. His concern that others were improperly excluded from consideration was addressed by SECAF, though the remedy did not lift his record into the zone of retention. The AFPC/DPSOR advisory discusses how 36 airmen were inadvertently excluded from meeting the ERB. The Secretary of the Air Force addressed this through several measures, including allowing airmen to request their ERB non-retention be withdrawn based upon the 36 incorrectly excluded records. AFPC included the 36 records at the bottom of the Order of Merit for their boards, and then applied a matching number of additional retention quotas. The applicant's record did not score high enough for an additional retention quota. There appears to have been some miscommunication between the applicant's unit and AFPC regarding various exclusion criteria. This misunderstanding does not change the fact that the applicant's DIERT forced his record to be considered by the ERB. A complete copy of the AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In response, the applicant states he has been rated with 5’s on all of his Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) during his career in the military. The applicant points out that there was another member of his squadron who was also selected for separation but was able to remain in the Air Force and has had a 4 rating on an EPR. He would like to serve in the Air Force even if in another career field. He worked hard until his last day in the Air Force and is the 5th generation in his family to serve in the military. A complete copy of the applicant’s response, with attachments is at Exhibit F. 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, including his rebuttal response, in judging the merits of the case. To include the applicant’s contentions that others in the same class as he was in were excluded from ERB consideration while he was not. As stated the advisory from the Air Force OPR there were thirty-six individuals inadvertently left off the final eligibility list for the ERB. Since, these thirty-six exclusions could have impacted the overall order of merit, HQ AFPC developed several recommendations to provide relief. The Secretary of the Air Force decided that: Airmen from affected Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) who already met the board and who were selected for retention would not be affected. Their retention status was secure. The thirty-six Airmen who did not meet the board would not be subject to this board. HQ AFPC determined there were 50 Airmen not selected for retention who should be allowed to request withdrawal of their ERB-directed separation based upon the exclusion of these thirty-six records. This course of action had HQ AFPC include the thirty-six excluded Airmen at the bottom of their respective Order of Merit from the respective boards and apply thirty-six additional retention quotas (based upon how many were added to the bottom of each pool). When applying these new retention quotas to the applicant’s AFSC/Grade pool, his record did not score well enough to earn one of the additional retention quotas. While we are not unsympathetic to the applicant’s circumstances, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief. 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-2014-03495 in Executive Session on 11 Jun 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-03495 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 29 Oct 14. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 9 Dec 14. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Apr 15. Exhibit F. Rebuttal, dated 19 May 15.