Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800459
Original file (9800459.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 8 - 0 0 4 5 9  
COUNSEL:  MELVIN D. HORTON 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

Applicant requests that his records be corrected to reflect that 
he received his upgraded skill level on 23  February 1 9 7 9   and was 
promoted to the grade of senior airman, effective and with date 
AppI'icant I s 
of  rank  of  23  February  1 9 7 9 ,   with  back  pay. 
submission is at Exhibit A. 

The  appropriate Air  Force  office  evaluated  applicant's request 
and provided  an advisory opinion to  the Board  recommending the 
application be  denied  (Exhibit C). 
The  advisory  opinion  was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response  (Exhibit D). 
As of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the 
available  evidence  of  record, we  find  insufficient evidence  of 
error or injustice to warrant corrective action.  The facts and 
opinions stated in the advisory opinion appear to be based on the 
evidence  of  record  and  have  not  been  adequately  rebutted  by 
app 1 icant . 
Absent  persuasive  evidence  applicant  was  denied 
rights  to  which  entitled,  appropriate  regulations  were  not 
followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we  find no 
basis to disturb the existing record. 

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 

-- 

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  issue(s)  involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. 
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and 
will only be  reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 
Members  of  the  Board  Mr.  David  W.  Mulgrew,  Mr.  Frederick  R. 
Beaman 111, and Mr. Joseph G .   Diamond considered this application 
on 1 6   June 1 9 9 8 ,   in accordance with the provisions of Air Force 
Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3   and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1 5 5 2 .  

DAVID W-. MULGREW  1 
Panel Chair 

Exhibits: 

A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinion 
D.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE  A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCEPERSONNELCENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  AFPC/DPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 09 
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4711 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting his date of rank (DOR) to senior airman 

( S U )  be changed from 1 Nov 80 to 23 Feb 79 and back pay due. 

Reason fox Request.  Applicant believes because he completed his Career Development 

Courses (CDCs) on 17 Feb 79 and received his upgraded skill IeveI 23 Feb 79 that he should 
have been promoted on the same date. 

Facts.  The applicant was promoted to SrA effective and with a date of rank of 1 Nov 80 

per AFR 39-29, Table 5, Rule 1 (DOR announced by HQ AFMPC). 

Discussion.  This application has not been submitted within the three year time limitation. 

Promotions to this grade were controlled by the periodic promotion quotas to Major Air 
Commands by the Director of Military Personnel, Headquarters USAF.  Promotions 
accomplished within each Major Air Command were limited to the quotas allocated for each 
grade.  Quotas were vacancy driven and if there were no vacancies, although individuals were 
otherwise eligible, they could not be promoted.  Our Monthly Increment Status records indicated 
for SrA (E4), time-in-grade (TIG) was between 3 Feb 79 and 2 Mar 79, promotion 1 Nov 80. 
His records reflect his date of rank for airman first class (AlC) was 8 Feb79, which made him 
eligible to be promoted to SrA 1 Nov 80.  In order to have been promoted to SrA during the Feb 
79 time fixme as he requests, his date of rank to A1C must have been between 12 Mar 77 and 16 
Apr 77.  Again, his DOR to AlC was 8 Feb 79 which was not eligible for promotion until 1 Nov 
80, the date he was promoted.  Consequently, he is nor authorized or entitled to an earlier 
promotion date to SrA. 

9800459 

Recommendation.  Denial, based on the rationale provided. 

Chief, InquirieslAFBCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Br 

Attachment: 
Extract Cy, AFR 39-29 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03806

    Original file (BC-2002-03806.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Sep 80, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to vacate the suspended nonjudicial punishment because he again failed to report for duty at the appropriate time. The commander, on 14 Oct 80, determined that applicant was guilty of the offenses and imposed punishment consisting of forfeiture of $224.00 per month for two months, restriction to base for 45 days, and a reduction to the grade of airman basic, with a new date of rank of 14 Oct 80. He had completed a total of 2...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00209

    Original file (FD2003-00209.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD03-0209 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for an Honorable Discharge. The records indicate the applicant was discharged with a General Discharge for Failure in the Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Program. (Change Discharge to Honorable) Issue 1: I received a General Under Honorable Conditions due to my failure of the Alcohol Rehabilitation Program at McChord AFB.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00563

    Original file (BC-2007-00563.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    During that period there was no performance report, no credit for time in grade and no active duty assignment. On 1 Feb 79, he reenlisted in the Regular Air Force. The applicant contends that by making an exception to policy when he reenlisted in 1979, the Air Force "acknowledged there was no appropriate applicability" of the regulation that barred him from reenlistment in 1978.

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD00-00040

    Original file (FD00-00040.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ATR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD ‘NAME OF SERVICE MEMRAER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) ~ PERSONAL APPEARANCE AIC GRADE AYSN/S84N X RECORD REVIEW NAME GF COUNSEL AND OK ORGANZA THOM ADDRESS AND OR ORGANIZATION GF COLINSEL — M EMBERS SITTING HON GEN OTHC OTHER DENY at peer “INDEX NUMBER“ "" ERE PRIBIIS SUUMIFTED TO THE BOAR AQLS7 A66.00 ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER GRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE ae et 23...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800166

    Original file (9800166.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). We defer to AFPC/DPPPWB’s advisory which indicates applicant never completed the minimum requirements for promotion to Senior Airman, and therefore, his application should be denied. The applicant is requesting his grade at the time of discharge from the Air Force be changed to reflect senior airman (SRA) (E-4) and not airman first...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01386

    Original file (BC-2002-01386.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from Active Duty, Item 27, Remarks, reflects he completed the Non-commissioned Officer Orientation Course in April 1978. They find that the applicant’s records reflect no indication the applicant performed any duties, assigned or attached, with the OSI or EOD. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reiterated his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-3688

    Original file (BC-2002-3688.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03688 INDEX CODE: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRS recommends the application be denied. He provided no other...

  • AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00152

    Original file (FD2005-00152.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    - ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE PERSONAL APPEARANCE I 1 07 Dec 2005 APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND TXE BOARD'S DECISKlNAL RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD-2005-00152 I I Case heard at Washington, D.C. MD 20762-7002 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used i i AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE...

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0177

    Original file (FD2002-0177.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDIN.E ENITIAL) “ GRADE AFSN/SSAN ” AB tee = 7 - . CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 1'1902-0177 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Major eh recommended that Senior Airman be fesued an under other than honorable conditions discharge without suspension for probation and rehabilitation (P & R)- After consulting legal counsel, Senior Airman QQ...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00008

    Original file (FD2003-00008.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A95.00 A66.00 1 | ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD 9 | APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE |3 | LETTER OF NOTIFICATION | —t HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER 4 | BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE 18 SUIN'OS FD2005-0008 _ COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL APPEARANCE T TAPE RECORDING OF PERSONAL APPERANCE HEARING J —— — = APPLICANT'S ISSUE AND THE BOARIZ'S DECISIONAL RATIQNAL‘ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIRFORCE: DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE. ...