RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00134
INDEX CODE: 112.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His enlistment grade be changed from senior airman (E-4) to his
previous grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank of 1 Sep
95.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was miscounseled on his enlistment options for the Regular Air
Force and as a result, he lost a stripe and active duty time.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement
and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his
contentions. These documents are appended at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals
that the applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular
Air Force on 23 Oct 98 in the grade of senior airman (E-4), with an
effective date and date of rank of 23 Oct 98. His Total Active
Federal Military Service Date is 12 Jul 93.
The relevant facts pertaining to this application 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 Skills Management Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, indicated that the
applicant was advised that, since he did not meet the minimum total
active federal military service (TAFMS), he was not entitled to retain
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) on his transfer to active duty. The
applicant served as a Reservist on an extended active duty (EAD) tour
from 2 Jun 97 to 4 Sep 98. Prior to his date of separation (DOS), he
requested to enlist in the Regular Air Force, in accordance with AFI
36-2002, paragraph 3.6. The applicant was eligible to enlist under
this provision but was advised he should seek enlistment through an
Air Force Recruiter. This enlistment option resulted in the
adjustment of his date of rank (DOR) and a break in service. After
further review of applicant’s case, DPPAE still believes the
applicant’s grade of senior airman is correct. However, his break in
service and the resulting adjustment to his TAFMS and DOR could have
been avoided if he had been correctly advised on enlistment options.
DPPAE recommended the applicant’s record be corrected to show he
enlisted in the Regular Air Force in the grade of E-4, with a DOR of
27 Jul 90, and restoration of the 49 days of lost TAFMS, with
appropriate back pay and allowances (Exhibit C).
The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB,
stated that if the applicant’s DOR to senior airman (E-4) is corrected
to 27 Jul 90 and he is credited with 49 days additional Total Active
Federal Military Service (TAFMS), he will be entitled to supplemental
promotion consideration to staff sergeant (E-5) for the 99E5 cycle.
Selections for this cycle were made on 6 Aug 99 and are effective 1
Sep 99 - 1 Aug 00. Although the applicant was selected for E-5 during
this cycle based on a DOR of 23 Oct 98 and a TAFMSD of 12 Jul 93, an
earlier DOR and TAFMSD will result in an earlier Promotion Sequence
Number (PSN). His current PSN will be incremented 1 Aug 00. If his
DOR is corrected to 27 Jul 90 and his TAFMSD to 23 May 93, his new PSN
would be effective 1 Sep 99 (Exhibit D).
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 24
May 1999 and 10 September 1999 for review and response. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
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 facts
and circumstances of this case, we agree with the assessments of HQ
AFPC/DPPAE and adopt their rationale as the basis for the Board’s
decision. Inasmuch as the applicant was misinformed regarding his
enlistment options, he should not be penalized for the erroneous
information. In this respect, we note that the option he selected,
based on the miscounseling, resulted in a break in service, an
adjustment to his date of rank (DOR) and delayed promotion
consideration to E-5. As to the applicant’s request that his
enlistment grade be changed to his previous grade of staff sergeant (E-
5), we find no basis to recommend favorable action on this portion of
the applicant’s request. No evidence has been provided to indicate
that the applicant met the minimum Total Active Federal Military
Service (TAFMS) requirement for enlistment in the grade of E-5. In
view of the foregoing, we recommend the applicant’s records 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 not released from active duty on 4 September 1998,
but was continued on active duty for the convenience of the government
until 22 October 1998, on which date he was honorably released from
active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.
b. On 23 October 1998, he enlisted in the Regular Air Force
in the grade of senior airman (E-4), with an effective date and date
of rank of 27 July 1990 rather than 23 October 1998.
It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) for
all appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 99E5.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated
to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered
the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual's qualifications for the promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for
promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion the
records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the higher
grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental promotion
and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such
grade as of that date.
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 16 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Dec 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 5 May 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 20 Aug 99.
Exhibit E. Letters, SAF/MIBR, dated 24 May 99 and 10 Sep 99.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 99-00134
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 APPLICANT be corrected to show that:
a. He was not released from active duty on 4 September
1998 but was continued on active duty for the convenience of the
government until 22 October 1998, on which date he was honorably
released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve.
b. On 23 October 1998, he enlisted in the Regular Air
Force in the grade of senior airman (E-4), with an effective date and
date of rank of 27 July 1990 rather than 23 October 1998.
It is further directed that he be provided supplemental
consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) for
all appropriate cycles beginning with Cycle 99E5.
If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to
supplemental consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated
to the issues involved in this application, that would have rendered
the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be
documented and presented to the Board for a final determination on the
individual's qualifications for the promotion.
If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection
for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion
the records shall be corrected to show that he was promoted to the
higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental
promotion and that he is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits
of such grade as of that date.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
EPR profile since 1997 reflects the following: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 22 Apr 97 4 * 30 Jan 98 1 30 May 98 4 30 Sep 98 5 10 Jul 99 5 14 May 00 5 * Contested report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that based on the applicant’s date of rank for senior airman, the first time the report was...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03018 INDEX CODE: 111.02, 134.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An expired Unfavorable Information File (UIF), with a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from her records; the line in Section V (Rater’s Comments) of her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 23 Apr 99, which made the...
According to DPPPWB, based on the applicant’s DOR to senior airman of 15 Feb 00, the first time she will be eligible to be considered in the promotion process to staff sergeant would be cycle 01E5. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was promoted to the grade of airman on 15 Aug 97, rather than 15 Jul 97 when she would have completed the minimum six months TIG for promotion to airman. Exhibit D. Letter, applicant, dated 22 Jan 01.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: By Article 15 action on 26 November 1997, the applicant was given a suspended reduction from staff sergeant to senior airman for committing adultery between, on or about 27 October 1996 and 5 January 1997. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Management Specialist, HQ AFPC/DPPRS, advised that applicant’s commander denied his request...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01813 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be allowed to retest for promotion to staff sergeant (E-5) in the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) for cycle 98E5, in the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 3M050 (Services Craftsman). AFI 36-2605 requires individuals to...
Should the board void the report entirely, or upgrade his EPR closing 31 Aug 99, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 00E7 promotion cycle to master sergeant. A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 August 2001, for review and response within...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 24 Mar 00 for review and response. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Medical Consultant, AFBCMR, reviewed this application and indicated that, he is of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02844
The applicant has provided no evidence of a clear error or injustice related to the nonjudicial punishment action. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03355
Based on the applicant’s DOR as a SrA of 13 June 1992, the first time he was considered for promotion to the grade of SSgt was cycle 94A5. The AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In an undated letter, the applicant reiterated his contention that based on Air Force Pamphlet 36-2241, paragraph 15.41.2.SrA, which states that A1Cs are promoted to SrA with either 36 months TIS and 20...
When she was subsequently considered in the correct promotion AFSC, 8B000 (Military Training Instructor), she was not selected. According to the Air Force, had she been considered in the MTI career field, she still would not have been selected because her test score was too low. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that...