RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00587
INDEX CODE 131.05 131.09
XXXXXXXXXXX. COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His previous grade of airman first class (A1C) be restored.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons applicant believes he has been the victim of an error and/or an
injustice are contained in his complete submission, which includes eight
character references and is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty on 24 April 1996 as an A1C (DOR: 24 April
1996). Following his court-martial for attempted drug possession, he was
reduced to airman basic effective 18 September 1997. He completed the
Return to Duty Program (RTDP) and was returned to duty on 29 May 1998. His
Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) was suspended through 29 May 1999. On 30 May
1999, he was promoted to airman. At this time he is an appointment clerk at
XXXXXX AFB. Assuming he is recommended by his commander, and provided he
is otherwise eligible, he could be promoted to A1C on 30 March 2000 upon
completion of 10 months time-in-grade (TIG). He currently has a date of
separation (DOS) of 23 April 2000, the end of his four-year term of
enlistment (TOE).
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to
recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, indicates that the applicant will have
sufficient time prior to his DOS to be promoted to A1C, provided he is
otherwise eligible. The Chief does not recommend the applicant’s grade be
restored.
A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
The Staff Judge Advocate (SJA), HQ APFC/JA, asserts that the purpose of
suspending the applicant’s BCD for one year was to ensure that the
rehabilitative programs of the RTDP were successful. The purpose of the
RTDP is to give the airman a chance to restart his career or separate with
an honorable expiration of term of service discharge. It is not a purpose
of the RTDP to restore grade. The SJA recommends denial.
A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the complete evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 26
April 1999 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this
office has received no response.
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 the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded
that his previous grade of A1C should be restored. We are normally
sympathetic to those individuals who have successfully rehabilitated
themselves through the very difficult RTDP but, because they do not have
enough time to regain their lost grade(s), face imminent separation. We
commend the applicant on his hard work in successfully completing the RTDP
and accepting responsibility. However, unlike other RTDP graduates we have
considered, this applicant will have sufficient time to regain his A1C on
20 March 2000 before his current TOE separation date of 23 April 2000,
provided he is otherwise eligible and is recommended by his commander.
Based on the supporting documentation he has provided, he appears to be an
excellent performer and, in all probability, will be afforded a second
chance in the military. We wish him every success in his future career.
However, in view of the above and the fact that we find no error or
injustice in his reduction in grade by court-martial, we have no compelling
basis to recommend restoring his original A1C grade.
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 17 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 12 Mar 99, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 12 Apr 99, w/atch.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Apr 99.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01781
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2004-01781 INDEX CODE 131.00, 105.01, 100.06 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank of senior airman (SRA) be restored so that he may continue his military career, having completed the Return to Duty Program (RTDP). He successfully completed the program in Jan 03 and was returned to duty...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that the applicant has been advised through his servicing Military Personnel Flight (MPF) that he was not eligible to be promoted to airman until 11 February 1999, the day following the suspended discharge and will not be eligible for promotion to A1C until 11 December 1999 upon completion of the required 10 months (TIG) provided he...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00075
If the applicant had not been court-martialed and reduced to the grade of AB, he would have been promoted to the grade of SRA on 16 Feb 04, provided there were no ineligibility conditions and he had the recommendation of his commander. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB notes the applicant’s incorrect promotion to airman and A1C and provides details regarding the applicant’s promotion eligibility and the pertinent DORs based on various circumstances. A...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01741
The applicant’s performance reports and numerous awards are provided at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that, based on the applicant’s current and DOR of 9 Apr 03 for airman, the earliest cycle he would be eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt would be 07E5. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03499
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03499 INDEX CODES: 123.08, 131.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the grade of airman first class (A1C) (E-3) be changed from 16 Sep 03 to 13 Jul 01. Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01642
DPPPWB states that, based on the Air Force Clemency and Review Board’s letter of 29 March 2004, remitting the applicant’s bad conduct discharge, MilPDS has been administratively corrected to reflect the applicant’s grade as airman (E-2), with an effective date and date of rank of 30 March 2004. The HQ AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion...
Qualification criteria for entry, award, and retention of “3P0X2” at that time stated, “Never been convicted by a general, special, or summary courts- martial.” On 10 January 1998, applicant’s Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) was remitted. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, also reviewed this application and states that the applicant has not proven the existence of an error or injustice relating to his removal from the...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-03465
_______________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPW recommends denial of the applicant’s request to restore his time lost. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends that the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) to both A1C and SrA be adjusted accordingly if his request to restore lost time is granted. In view of the above findings we recommend the lost time be removed from applicant’s records.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02856
Therefore, he was not eligible for promotion to airman until that date. He is granted a waiver and is eligible to reenlist in the Regular Air Force. He is granted a waiver and is eligible to reenlist in the Regular Air Force.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00672
All that is required is that airmen returned to duty be allowed to serve at least one year before separation. He was promoted to the grade of senior airman, effective and with a date of rank of 27 March 2005. b. He was promoted to the grade of senior airman, effective and with a date of rank of 27 March 2005. b.