RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01179
INDEX CODE: 131.05
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to airman (E-2) be changed from
20 Jan 98 to 7 Oct 97.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He started Basic Military Training (BMT) on 2 Apr 97 and should have
been eligible for airman on or about 2 Oct 97. For reasons beyond his
control, such as a reorganization (changes in squadron leaders) in the
Security Forces Squadron and his name not being included on an
eligibility roster, he was not promoted when he was eligible.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a letter from the
Security Forces Manager with a 1st indorsement statement from the
commander.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached 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, Special Actions & Personal Affairs, ANG/DPPU, reviewed this
application and indicated that after review of Air National Guard
Instruction (ANGI) 36-2502 (Promotion of Airman, ANG), the applicant
did meet the eligibility for promotion on or about 7 Oct 97. However,
just because an individual meets the eligibility criteria for
promotion does not mandate that they should be promoted to the next
higher grade exactly on the day which they become eligible.
Furthermore, no member is entitled to pay and allowances simply by
being eligible for promotion to the next higher grade. The applicant
has received the appropriate pay and allowances commensurate with his
grade. DPPU further states that the Security Forces Manager
indicates, in his 2 Feb 98 letter, that applicant’s name was not
included on an eligibility roster generated each month by the unit’s
Personnel Systems Management Branch. The eligibility roster he refers
to is simply an administrative tool used by unit commanders to assist
in determining which members of his/her organization are eligible for
promotion. DPPU recommends denial of applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 7 Sep
98 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 a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that his DOR for promotion to airman should be changed from
20 Jan 98 to 7 Oct 97. We reviewed the statement provided by the
Security Forces Manager and indorsed by the commander. However, this
statement is not sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale
provided by the ANG. In this respect, while it appears that the
applicant did meet the eligibility for promotion on or about 7 Oct 97,
as noted by the ANG, just because an individual meets the eligibility
criteria for promotion does not mandate that they should be promoted
to the next higher grade exactly on the day that they become eligible.
Furthermore, we note the eligibility roster the applicant refers to
is simply an administrative tool used by unit commanders to assist in
determining which members of the organization are eligible for
promotion. In view of the foregoing, we are in complete agreement
with the recommendation of the ANG and adopt the rationale expressed
as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice and
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 10 May 1999, under the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPPU, dated 17 Aug 98.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Sep 98.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01179 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to airman (E-2) be changed from 20 Jan 98 to 7 Oct 97. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Special Actions & Personal Affairs, ANG/DPPU,...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01062 INDEX CODE 135.02 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of E-7 be restored and he be awarded 13 additional points for the period 30 July 1996 to 29 July 1997 for a satisfactory year of Federal service, credited for 12 years, 4 months, and 19 days of prior active Federal...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Commanders’ Programs Branch, AFPC/DPSFC, reviewed this application and indicated that although the applicant states that he was unable to take leave in Sep due to short-notice that he had to attend the SNCOA, this is not a valid reason to carry over more than 60 days into FY99. When they schedule leave in Sep, they risk losing days if unable to take the leave due to unforeseen circumstances...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01062
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01062 INDEX CODE 135.02 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of E-7 be restored and he be awarded 13 additional points for the period 30 July 1996 to 29 July 1997 for a satisfactory year of Federal service, credited for 12 years, 4 months, and 19 days of prior active Federal...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00833 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant, Air National Guard, be changed from 1 Sep 96 to 1 May 83, which would allow him to be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant effective 15 Nov 97. However, when he...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03451
He had completed a total of 9 years and 27 days and was serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) at the time of discharge. At the time members are separated from the Air Force, they are furnished an RE code predicated upon the quality of their service and circumstances of their separation. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...
The applicant was progressively promoted to the Reserve of the Air Force and Air National Guard grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5), with a promotion service date (PSD) of 11 Jan 87 and an effective date of 15 May 87. By ANG Special Order AP-124, dated 5 Jun 98, he was promoted to the Reserve of the Air Force and Air National Guard grade of colonel (O-6), with a PSD and effective date of 30 Jun 96. In the applicant’s case, as a colonel (O-6), he could have served to age 60 or 30 years of...
DPPPWB stated that, as evidenced by the special order awarding the applicant's AFCM, the decoration did not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 96E7 cycle because the RDP date was 22 Aug 96--after selections were made on 25 May 96 for the 96E7 cycle. Exceptions to the above policy are only considered when the airman can support a previous submission with documentation or statements including conclusive evidence that the recommendation was officially placed in military channels...
The report was forwarded for senior rater endorsement and signed, dated 14 June 1997. The reaccomplished EPR should be removed from his record and replaced with the initial EPR signed and dated 2 June 1997, which accurately reflected his duty performance during the period in question. EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries, AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that the first time the report was considered in the...