Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0001383
Original file (0001383.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01383
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Promotion Enhancement Program (PEP) promotion to senior master  sergeant
(SMSgt) be reinstated.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust  and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are 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 Acting Chief, Military Personnel  Division,  directorate  of  Personnel,
AFRC/DPM reviewed this  application  and  states  that  the  AFRC/CV  policy
guidance included in the applicant’s application  does  not  apply  in  this
case, the member’s position was eliminated prior to the  effective  date  of
this policy.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation  and  provided  a  response,
which is attached at 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.  Applicant  was  promoted  to  the
Reserve grade of  senior  master  sergeant  (SMSgt)  under  the  Performance
Enhancement Program (PEP).  However,  since  his  position  was  eliminated,
applicant was forced into being reduced to the grade of master  sergeant  in
order to continue his career in the Air Force Reserve.  It is  important  to
note that a change in policy was made shortly after he was reduced in  grade
that would have allowed him to keep his promotion to SMSgt.  In view of  the
period  of  time  that  applicant  served  in  the  grade  of   SMSgt,   the
circumstances surrounding his reduction in grade and his record of  superior
performance for over 24 years, we believe that justice dictates approval  of
the requested relief.  Therefore, 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  he  was  promoted  to  the  Reserve
grade of Senior Master Sergeant with a date of rank 1 October 1996 and  with
an effective date of 1 January 1998.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 4 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chair
            Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
            Ms. Diane Arnold, Member





All members voted to correct the records,  as  recommended.   The  following
documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 May 2000, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 24 July 2000.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 August 2000.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 28 August 2000.





               TEDDY L. HOUSTON
               Panel Chair









AFBCMR 00-01383



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   , be corrected to show that he was promoted to the Reserve
grade of Senior Master Sergeant with a date of rank 1 October 1996 and with
an effective date of 1 January 1998.





                                  JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                  Director
                                  Air Force Review Boards Agency







Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801102

    Original file (9801102.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02044

    Original file (BC-2002-02044.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The following is a resume of the applicant's recent EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 7 Jun 99 4 7 Jun 01 4 3 Jun 02 3 _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPM reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that his commander abused his discretionary authority or that his decision not to recommend the applicant for promotion was based on...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01178

    Original file (BC-2003-01178.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 December 1994, the applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force for a period of six years. He was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard on 1 September 1995. Pursuant to the Board’s request, AFRC/DPM again reviewed this application and stated that the applicant was demoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) because of unsatisfactory performance.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0000980

    Original file (0000980.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a member of the Air Force Reserve, was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) when her disability case was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) in December 1999, for a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder. Counsel provided a statement supporting the applicant’s requests to change the IG findings; credit satisfactory service to 20 plus years; change the AF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201426

    Original file (0201426.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01426 INDEX CODE 131.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the Reserve grade of master sergeant (MSgt). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100264

    Original file (0100264.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200490

    Original file (0200490.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Applicant was not recommended for promotion. 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 and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01995

    Original file (BC-2004-01995.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Instead, they record Army Reserve promotions under the grade of sergeant (E- 5) on a Department of the Army (DA) Form 4187, Personnel Action. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 2 September 2003, she enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of airman first class, with a date of rank of 8 July 2000, rather than in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802823

    Original file (9802823.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was discharged from the Air Force because he was not promoted to 1st lieutenant. He urges the Board to please grant this requested hearing so that the truth in this can be made known. After reviewing the evidence of record and the documentation submitted with this appeal, we note that the commander’s recommendation that the applicant was not qualified for promotion to 1st lieutenant was found legally sufficient and was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01181

    Original file (BC-2007-01181.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was not promoted however to SMSgt. In this respect, a commander is not under any obligation to promote a member who meets the basic requirements, such as TIG, until that commander feels that the member is ready for promotion and proceeds with a recommendation. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...