RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01037
INDEX CODE: 131.09
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her records be corrected to reflect that she was not demoted from the
Reserve grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) to staff sergeant (SSgt).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her demotion from TSgt to SSgt was unfair, unlawful, and unjust. She
was discriminated against. The reasons used in the demotion action
were the same as the alleged violations of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided documentation
pertaining to the demotion action, to include the notification of the
demotion and the demotion order.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently assigned to the Nonobligated
Nonparticipating Ready Reserve Section (NNRPS) of the Air Force
Reserve in the grade of staff sergeant. Prior to the matter under
review, the applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of
technical sergeant. She was credited with 26 years and 1 month of
satisfactory Federal service for retirement.
Available documentation indicates that, on 29 May 98, the applicant's
commander notified her of his intent to demote her to the grade of
staff sergeant for failing to fulfil her noncommissioned officer
responsibilities. The specific reasons for the demotion action were
her insubordinate conduct towards a captain and a master sergeant on
21 Feb 98; her refusal and failure to attend EEO 2000 training on 21
Feb 98; her refusal to conduct MICAP training on 21 Feb 98, which was
her responsibility to do; and her financial irresponsibility in paying
her AAFES deferred payment plan in a timely fashion. The applicant
appealed her administrative demotion, but it was denied.
By Reserve Order P-152, dated 11 Aug 98, the applicant was demoted
from the grade of technical sergeant to staff sergeant, effective and
with date of rank of 10 Aug 98.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Military Personnel Division, AFRC/DPM, reviewed this application
and recommended denial. DPM noted that HQ AFRC/CV denied the
applicant’s appeal of her administrative demotion.
A complete copy of the DPM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit
B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 28
Jun 99 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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. The evidence of record
indicates that the applicant was demoted from the Reserve grade of
technical sergeant to staff sergeant for insubordinate conduct,
failure to attend training, refusal to conduct training, and financial
irresponsibility. The applicant contends that the demotion was
unjust. However, other than her assertions, we find no evidence which
would lead us to believe that the information used as a basis for her
demotion was erroneous, that the demotion action was processed in a
manner contrary to the governing regulation, or that there was an
abuse of discretionary authority in her case. In view of the above,
and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 2 Dec 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Apr 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 25 May 99, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Jun 99.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Military Personnel Division, , reviewed this application and noted that a review of the demotion actions against the applicant indicated he was demoted from technical sergeant (TSgt) to staff sergeant (SSgt), under the authority of Article 15 action, effective 23 May 94, for dereliction of duty. The evidence of record reflects that the applicant was reduced from the grade of technical sergeant to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03920
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPM recommended denial noting the applicant was in a retraining status at the time of her promotion to TSgt and did not have a three- skill level in the promotion AFSC as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. AFRC/DPM indicated that as a result of the applicant’s DOR being changed to 1 Mar 02, she did not meet the two- year minimum time in grade requirement for promotion to the grade...
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...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, copies of his retirement orders and revoked orders, and other documents associated to the matter under review. The evidence of record indicates that, contrary to his own assertion, the applicant voluntarily resigned his ART position, which rendered him ineligible for RSSP under RTAP. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Applicant was nominated for promotion to the grade of MSgt under the PEP with an effective date f o r promotion of 1 April 1997. 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. ...
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT: AFBCMR Case on APPLICANT, AFBCMR 01-00232 I have carefully reviewed the circumstances of this case and do not agree with the opinion of the majority of the panel that applicant’s request to have his time in grade or date of rank (DOR) to the grade of Technical Sergeant (TSgt) adjusted to include his previous time in grade as a TSgt, from 1 Jul 86 - 6 Sep 94, while in the Air Force...
On 25 April 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for a period of six years. The Air Force has indicated that the applicant has received incapacitation pay for the period 2 Nov 96 through 1 May 97. She has completed a total of 17 years, and 5 days of satisfactory Federal service as of her Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 22 July 2002.
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.