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
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01328
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...