RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02777
INDEX CODE: 131.05
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The effective date of promotion to first lieutenant (1Lt) be corrected from
3 December 1996 to 17 November 1996 (the official date of rank).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The date of rank for 0-2 correctly reflects 17 November 1996. The
Effective Date should also reflect 17 November 1996.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard in the grade
of 1Lt with an established date of rank (DOR) of 17 November 1996 and
effective date of 3 December 1996.
On 17 November 1996, a Federal Recognition Board found that the applicant
was qualified for promotion to the grade of 1Lt. The effective date is the
date of Federal recognition and Federal recognition is defined as the date
ANG/MPPS receives the promotion request.
ANG/MPPS received the letter to promote the applicant on 3 December 1996,
thereby, establishing her effective DOR as 3 December 1996.
By Special Order AP-234, dated 9 December 1996, the applicant was promoted
to the grade of 1Lt, with a DOR of 17 November 1996 and effective date of
3 December 1996.
The Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) effective 1 October
1996, Section 14308, paragraph (c)(2) of Title 10, United States Code,
eliminated officers receiving backpay upon promotion to the next higher
grade. Officers will receive credit for Time-In-Grade/Date of Rank (which
is the date the officer meets the Federal Recognition Board in the state),
however, the effective date is the date of Federal recognition.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the application and states that
officers will receive credit for Time-In-Grade/Date of Rank (which is the
date the officer meets the Federal Recognition Board in the state),
however, the effective date is the date of Federal recognition. Federal
recognition is defined by Section 14308, paragraph (f) of Title 10 USC as
“the date on which such Federal recognition in that grade is so extended.”
Their office has sent messages to the states stressing the importance of
timely submissions of promotion packages. The applicant met the board at
the unit on 17 November 1996. They received the letter to promote her on 3
December 1996. In accordance with their guidelines, and the intent of the
promotion service date/effective date issued under ROPMA, the member’s
effective date is correct as 3 December 1996. Therefore, they recommend
denial of applicant's request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 19 October 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence of
record, that Board is of the opinion that, in accordance with Title 10,
United States Code, Section 14308(f) Effective Date of Promotion after
Federal Recognition, the applicant’s effective date of promotion is
correct. We note that ANG/MPPS received the letter to promote the
applicant on 3 December 1996 and, therefore, established the effective date
for the applicant’s promotion as 3 December 1996. In view of the
foregoing, and in the absence of evidence, we find no basis upon which to
recommend favorable action on this application.
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 issue(s) involved. Therefore, the request
for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 8 April 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 21 Sep 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Oct 98.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-03810
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03810 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 June 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His promotion effective date (PED) and his date of rank (DOR) to the grade of major be changed from 18 October 2006 to 1 May 2006. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03302 INDEX CODE: 135.00 COUNSEL: ROBERT T. SUMMA HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the Missouri Air National Guard (MO ANG) in the grade of major, with a retroactive promotion date of May 1997; or in the alternative, his name be placed on the retired Reserve list, with a credit of six...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011134C070206
Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers), effective 1 September 1994, paragraph 4-17 stated a qualified 1LT would not be promoted before the date of completion of 3 years of promotion service with two specified exceptions (neither of which applied to the applicant). Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers) provides policy for selecting and promoting...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not provided sufficient...
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to 9 Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-00427A
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 Dec 97, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request to change his DOR to 9 Jun 94 (Exhibit E). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Utilization, ANG/DPPU, reviewed the additional information from the applicant and indicated that after careful consideration of the additional documentation, the applicant has not...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120007083
The applicant requests: * the "1994" (i.e., 1996) nonselection letter be removed from his Army Military Human Resource Record (AMHRR) * his date of rank (DOR) to captain (CPT) be restored to 1996 * his DOR to major (MAJ) be adjusted * he be promoted to lieutenant colonel (LTC) * any non-mandatory education requirements such as the Command and General Staff Officers Course (CGSOC) be waived for promotion to LTC, if necessary 2. His records contain a memorandum, dated 1 March 1996, issued by...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02873
Had he been selected for promotion by this Board, he would have a DOR of 7 April 2006. When the error was realized, the ANG promoted him via Position Vacancy (PV) and recommended he apply to this Board to have his DOR and PED corrected to the earlier date. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was promoted to the Reserve...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00232
The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 7 March 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 14 November 1994, be replaced with corrected OPRs covering the same periods. The original performance reports do not fully reflect the applicant's contributions to the Air Force and the Air National Guard. They also recommend the applicant be considered by the next Air National Guard Colonel Federal Recognition Review Board.
The Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 7 March 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 14 November 1994, be replaced with corrected OPRs covering the same periods. The original performance reports do not fully reflect the applicant's contributions to the Air Force and the Air National Guard. They also recommend the applicant be considered by the next Air National Guard Colonel Federal Recognition Review Board.