Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900948
Original file (9900948.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00948
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect promotion  to  the  grade  of  technical
sergeant.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  was  passed  over  for  promotion,  treated  unfairly,  and  given   bad
information.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
supportive statements, and copies of his Airman Performance Reports  (APRs),
and other documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was relieved from active duty on 31 Aug 72 and retired,  effective
1 Sep 72, in the grade of staff sergeant.  He was credited with 20 years,  3
months, and 13 days of active duty service.

Special Order XXX,  dated  1  May  67,  indicates  that  the  applicant  was
promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, effective and with a date  of  rank
(DOR) of 1 May 67.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed
this application and recommended denial.  According to DPPPWB,  present  Air
Force policy does not allow for automatic  promotion  as  the  applicant  is
requesting.  In the absence of any documentation in his  records  reflecting
a promotion to technical sergeant, DPPPWB indicated that  they  must  assume
the applicant was retired in his proper grade.

A complete copy of the DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterated that he has been unfairly treated and  passed  over
for promotion in the military.  He is now at the mercy of the Board.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   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 (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for  our
conclusion that the applicant has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Therefore, in  the  absence  of  evidence  which  shows  to  our
satisfaction that the applicant should have been promoted  beyond  the  rank
of staff sergeant, 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 27 Jan 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
      Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 13 May 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Jun 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 14 Jun 99.




                                   CHARLES E. BENNETT
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01328

    Original file (BC-2004-01328.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01328 INDEX CODES: 121.02, 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to reflect she was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) effective 1 Mar 99; and, she receive back pay from 1 Mar 99 until the date her name was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01171

    Original file (BC-2005-01171.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations is appended at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the applicant may have...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01117

    Original file (BC-2005-01117.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations is appended at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the applicant may have...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01315

    Original file (BC-2005-01315.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations is appended at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the applicant may have...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01061

    Original file (BC-2005-01061.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant response to the Air Force evaluations, with attachments, is appended at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01024

    Original file (BC-2005-01024.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the applicant may have been at a disadvantage in competing for supplemental promotion because his record was scored against benchmark records that most likely contained superior performance as actual first sergeants, we believe his promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant in his old CAFSC should be reinstated as an exception to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01025

    Original file (BC-2005-01025.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the applicant may have been at a disadvantage in competing for supplemental promotion because his record was scored against benchmark records that most likely contained superior performance as actual first sergeants, we believe his promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant in his old CAFSC should be reinstated as an exception to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01250

    Original file (BC-2005-01250.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations, with attachments, is appended at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01496

    Original file (BC-2005-01496.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    After his selection for promotion to senior master sergeant it was determined that he should have been considered with a CAFSC of 8F000, First Sergeant and that his selection for promotion was erroneous. In view of the conflicting AFIs governing the effective date for changing the CAFSC upon being selected for retraining and the fact that it is conceivable the applicant may have been at a disadvantage in competing for supplemental promotion because his record was scored against benchmark...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0001523

    Original file (0001523.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB addressed the supplemental promotion consideration issue should the applicant’s request be approved. DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 97E5 to staff sergeant (E-5), promotions effective Sep 97 - Aug 98. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Having...