RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01175
INDEX CODE 129.01
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) be changed
from 30 June 1981 to 1 July 1981.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The extended active duty (EAD) time calculation, per AFI 36-2604,
between his service dates has given him credit for one more day than
he actually should have. The injustice is that being credited with
this extra day results in his not being eligible for promotion
consideration for master sergeant (MSgt) in January-March 2001 [cycle
01E7]. With his current TAFMSD, he reaches his high year of tenure
(HYT) date on 30 June 2001 and has to retire on 1 July 2001. This
makes him ineligible for promotion consideration. If his EAD time
between service dates was calculated on the amount of actual days
served, his TAFMSD would be 1 July 1981 and he would be eligible for
promotion consideration for the 01E7 cycle.
A copy of 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 and AFI 36-2604, are contained in the
letters prepared by the applicant and 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, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, discusses the
applicant’s particular circumstances as affected by AFI 36-2502 and
the impact on his HYT date and promotion eligibility. [The “Jun 81”
HYT date cited in the Discussion paragraph of the advisory is a
typographical error; it should be “Jun 01.”] The Chief defers any
recommendation regarding the TAFMSD to HQ AFPC/DPPRRA.
A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
The Military Personnel Technician, Retirement Operations Section, HQ
AFPC/DPPRRA, advises that using the AFI 36-2604 formula of considering
each month as 30 days (a 360-day calendar), the applicant’s active
duty period equals 167 days rather than the 166 days as shown as
Retirement Year Ending (RYE) time on the Statement of Service (SOS)
dated 29 December 1998 and changes his TAFMSD as shown on the reissued
SOS to 29 June 1981. Denial is recommended.
A copy of the complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
21 June 1999 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 to warrant changing the
applicant’s TAFMSD. After a thorough review of the evidence of record
and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he has been the
victim of either an error or an injustice. His contentions are duly
noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air
Force. Recognizing the ramifications inherent in his current TAFMSD,
we nevertheless agree with the recommendations of the Air Force 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. Therefore, we 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 21 January 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Apr 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 Jun 99, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPRRA, dated 25 May 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Jun 99.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
In this respect, we note that the applicant was supplementally considered, and selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 95E6. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with...
However, the Board did find sufficient evidence to warrant his supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for cycles 98E7, 99E7, and 00E7, using his test scores from cycle 01E7 (Exhibit G). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the applicant was ineligible to test for cycle 01E7 because of his High...
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the evaluations and provides, along with other documents, a copy of the EOT complaint he filed in 1992, but without any finding/recommendation. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the evidence of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02003 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant (CMSgt) during the 98E9 cycle. It was further explained that this supplemental promotion process allows those individuals who had errors in...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03028 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to SSgt (E-5) be corrected from 29 Feb 00 to 2 Nov 97, his DOR when he served in the Air National Guard (ANG); his extended active duty (EAD) date reflect 2 Mar 99 vice 29 Feb 00, and his Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) tests...
Should the board void the report entirely, or upgrade his EPR closing 31 Aug 99, the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 00E7 promotion cycle to master sergeant. A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 August 2001, for review and response within...
Too much emphasis was placed on a Letter of Admonition (LOA); there was bias by the additional rater; and, the number of days of supervision is incorrect. The HQ AFPC/DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB stated that the first time the contested report was considered in the promotion process was Cycle 01E7 to master sergeant (E-7), promotions effective Aug 01 - Jul 02. However, they do not, in the Board majority’s opinion, support a finding that the evaluators were unable to...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01882 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 25 Mar 99 through 24 Mar 00 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief,...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00134 INDEX CODE: 112.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlistment grade be changed from senior airman (E-4) to his previous grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank of 1 Sep 95. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was miscounseled on his enlistment options for the Regular Air Force and as a result, he lost a stripe and active duty time. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03286
The applicant has tested two other times for promotion to E-7 and received an SKT score of 32.63 for cycle 01E7 and 44.32 for cycle 02E7. Since the WAPS was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force on 3 July 1968, over 50,000 tests have been manually scored and the results compared against the computer score. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).