RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-03766
INDEX CODE: 131.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be given back the rank of staff sergeant (E-5).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In his transfer from the Navy Reserve back to the Air Force Reserve,
he lost two stripes. His honorable discharge from the Navy Reserve
shows him as an E-5. He was an E-5 in the Marine Corps (active), and
he was an E-5 from June 86 to Nov 93 in the USAFR. He lost the two
stripes in the transfer back to the Air Force Reserve in 1994 and has
been trying to get the stripes back ever since.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his
honorable discharge certificates and an enlistment document.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 16 Dec 94 for a period
of six years in the grade of airman first class (A1C).
A Classification/On-the-Job Training Actions Form, dated 3 Apr 97,
indicates that the applicant’s Primary Air Force Specialty Code was
changed from 2A633 to 2A653, effective 3 Apr 97.
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in
the grade of technical sergeant, having been promoted to that grade on
1 May 99.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Division, HQ AFRC/DPM, reviewed this
application and recommended denial. According to DPM, the applicant
is not eligible for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant.
Specifically, the applicant has not attended the required Professional
Military Education (PME).
A complete copy of the DPM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant indicated that he is requesting the promotion based on the
fact that he had been an E-5 before. He also stated that he completed
his 5-skill level career development courses (CDCs) and attended his
PME approximately 10 years ago. He then completed his 7-skill level
in approximately 1988. He has since taken his 5-skill level CDC again
and attended PME in Nov 96.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Pursuant to Board’s request, HQ AFRC/DPM, again reviewed this
application recommended denial. According to DPM, they were unable to
determine when the applicant served in the grade of E-5 based on the
paperwork he submitted. The applicant’s Military Personnel Flight has
been contacted and they indicated that he completed his 5-skill level
in Apr 97 and has recently completed his PME requirements in Jul 98.
Consequently, he is now eligible and is projected for promotion on 1
Sep 98.
A complete copy of the DPM evaluation is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 10
Nov 98 for review and response. 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 probable error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of clear-
cut evidence that the applicant’s grade at the time of his enlistment
in the Air Force Reserve in 1994 was erroneous, we find no compelling
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 probable material 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 this application in
Executive Session on 13 Jul 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Cathlynn Sparks, Panel Chair
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Dec 96, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 25 Feb 97.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 Mar 97.
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, undated.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFRC/DPM, undated.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Nov 98.
CATHLYNN SPARKS
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-03766
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to Board’s request, HQ AFRC/DPM, again reviewed this application recommended denial. The applicant’s Military Personnel Flight has been contacted and they indicated that he completed his 5-skill level in Apr 97 and has recently completed his PME requirements in Jul 98.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00711 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 30 Sep 95 and 30 Sep 96, be amended to include recommendations for professional military education (PME) and that he be considered for promotion to major by a Special Selection Board (SSB)...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01469
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01469 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears he wishes to be reconsidered for a position vacancy (PV) promotion by a Special Review Board (SRB) for the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Reserve of the Air Force (ResAF) Major PV Board. No officer who failed to complete PME...
As a result, the commander gave the applicant an LOR, initiated an unfavorable information file (UIF) and recommended that his name be removed from the promotion list in accordance with AFI 36-2504. Air Mobility Wing (AMW) Public Affairs Office commander did not put pressure on the applicant to remove the female individual and that the applicant should have stressed the professionalism of his office staff and not allowed the closeness and familiarity of his staff to get out of control. A...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Available documentation indicated that the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Dec 88 in the grade of airman for a period of six years. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s staff request, the Directorate of Military Law, AFRC/JAJM, reviewed this application and recommended denial. JAJM indicated that the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00590 (Case 3) INDEX CODE: 107.00, 111.00 COUNSEL: AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Evaluation (LOE), AF Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation Sheet), dated 7 Sep 96, be removed from his records; and, that he be provided a letter of apology from the evaluator (Lt Col K---) of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00509 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an Air Force Reserve retirement based on 20 satisfactory years of service. A memorandum, dated 18 Dec 97, indicated that the applicant, with an expiration term of service (ETS) of 12 Dec 97, had failed to reenlist and that...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00509
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00509 INDEX CODE: 136.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted an Air Force Reserve retirement based on 20 satisfactory years of service. A memorandum, dated 18 Dec 97, indicated that the applicant, with an expiration term of service (ETS) of 12 Dec 97, had failed to reenlist and that...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02121 INDEX CODE: 135.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect one (1) additional point to cover a “manday” for the time he spent at the USAF Academy Hospital, taking an Air Force Reserve mandated Cardiolite test. Accordingly, a majority of the Board recommends...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03845
Counsel further asserts that because the instruction cited in the reprimand imposed on the applicant under Article 15 was not in effect at the time of the applicant’s alleged misconduct and there was no paragraph 5 as referred to, the reprimand was in error and constituted an erroneous basis for the discharge action subsequently initiated against the applicant. Counsel also asserts that the reprimand imposed on the applicant under Article 15 admonishes the applicant for misconduct that the...