RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01992
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His retirement grade be changed to technical sergeant (TSgt).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the
appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing
Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the application and states that based on the
set aside of the two Article 15s, the applicant’s grade at the time of
separation, 24 July 1998, was SSgt effective and with a date of rank (DOR)
of 1 November 1989. Again, he had been selected for promotion to TSgt on
19 May 1997 for the 97E6 cycle. He received Promotion Sequence Number
(PSN) 3340.0 which would have been effective 1 December 1997 had he been
recommended by his commander and had otherwise been qualified. Given the
applicant’s conduct and behavior, although it appears as a result of his
medical condition, it is doubtful his commander would have recommended him
for promotion to TSgt to be effective 1 December 1997. They are not in a
position to
determine if the promotion to TSgt would have been approved, withheld,
deferred, or if the commander would have removed his name from the
selection list based on his conduct and behavior. However, they do not
recommend he be promoted to TSgt prior to his placement on the Temporary
Disability Retired List (TDRL) on 25 July 1998. The FY 97 National Defense
Authorization Act amended Section 1372 of Title 10, U.S.C. authorizing
temporary or permanent disability retirement in the grade to which the
member would have been promoted, had it not been for the physical
disability for which the member is retired and which was found to exist as
a result of a physical examination. This amendment was signed into law 23
September 1996. They defer to the decision of the Board regarding the
applicant’s request to be placed on the TDRL on 25 July 1998 in the grade
of TSgt.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Chief, Physical Disability Division, Directorate of Pers Prog
Management, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed the application and states that a Medical
Evaluation Board (MEB) was conducted on 24 March 1998 at Ramstein AB,
Germany and referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB). On
8 April 1998, the IPEB found the member unfit for continued military
service for a diagnosis of “Delusional disorder, erotomatic type” and
recommended he be placed on the TDRL with a 50 percent disability rating.
Applicant agreed with the findings and recommendation of the IPEB, however,
because the member had been reduced in rank, his case was forwarded to the
Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council (SAFPC) for a grade
determination to determine what military grade he would be placed on the
TDRL. On 8 May 1998, the Secretary of the Air Force determined that the
member had served satisfactorily in the higher grade of staff sergeant
(SSgt) within the meaning of Section 1372, Title 10, USC. Subsequently,
officials within the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force directed
applicant be placed on the TDRL with a 50 percent disability rating.
Member will assume the retired rank of SSgt when placed on the TDRL
effective 25 July 1998. Applicant now requests that his retired grade be
changed to TSgt based on his selection to TSgt during the 97E6 promotion
cycle. A review of the active duty HAF file on 23 July 1998 does not
reflect his projected promotion to this grade. They defer to the decision
of the Board concerning the applicant’s request to be placed on the TDRL,
effective 25 July 1998, in the grade of TSgt.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 28
September 1998, for review and response. 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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of
record, the Board notes the memorandum from the commander stating had he
known the applicant suffered from such a serious mental condition he would
not have served nonjudicial punishment on him and he set aside both
nonjudicial punishment actions. Based on the commander’s decision to set
aside both nonjudicial punishments, that was used as the basis to demote
the applicant, we believe that the applicant’s record should be corrected
to the extent indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:
a. He was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant effective
and with a date of rank of 1 December 1997.
b. On 25 July 1998, his name was placed on the Temporary
Disability Retired List in the grade of technical sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 10 December 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair
Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member
Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jul 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Aug 98.
Exhibit D. Letters, AFPC/DPPD, dated 23 Jul 98 & 1 Sep 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Sep 98.
HENRY C. SAUNDERS
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 98-01992
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section
1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to , be corrected to show that:
a. He was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant
effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 1997.
b. On 25 July 1998, his name was placed on the Temporary
Disability Retired List in the grade of technical sergeant.
JOE G.
LINEBERGER
Director
Air
Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01992
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01992 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retirement grade be changed to technical sergeant (TSgt). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Mil Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). At the time she was placed on TDRL, promotion testing was being conducted for the 96E6 cycle. Although she is requesting supplemental promotion consideration to TSgt for the 97E6 cycle, she was ineligible for consideration because she was not on active duty.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03741
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. Prior to the amendment to the law, members were retired in the grade they held on their date of separation. ...
The applicant was non-weighable (could not be considered because he did not test) for the 96E6 cycle (testing months January - March 1996). The applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of TSgt by cycle 96E6 using his test scores from the cycle 97E6 (testing months January - March 1997). The applicant was provided supplemental promotion consideration for the 96E6 cycle using his test scores from the 97E6 cycle.
1211(f) “Action under this section [1211] shall be taken on a fair and equitable basis, with regard being given to the probable opportunities for advancement and promotion that the member might reasonably have had if his name had not been placed on the temporary disability retired list.” Simply stated, if he were never on the TDRL, he would have probably scored well enough on the 96E7 test to be promoted in that cycle. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
For a decoration to be eligible for consideration in a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the RDP must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 26 July 1999, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. After reviewing...
His only mistake was not admitting his guilt to his commander at the time of the incident. A day prior to the meeting with his commander he met with his attorney to discuss the evidence against him and was informed that she had not yet seen any evidence for his case. The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment proceedings.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01992
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant that the applicant be considered for supplemental promotion to the grade of SSgt (E-5) with a TAFMSD of 17 March 1986, as adjusted by AFPC in 2006, beginning with cycle 91B5, and, if he is selected for promotion to SSgt by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection for promotion to the grades of...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was cycle 95E6 to technical sergeant (promotions effective August 95 - July 1996). A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and...
The Statement of Understanding, dated 14 November 1995 indicates that upon promotion to the grade of captain, applicant would incur a one-year active duty service commitment (ADSC) from the effective date of promotion. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Officer Promotion Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, states that the applicant was denied promotion to the grade of captain due to her inability to complete the one-year active duty...