RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01520
INDEX CODE: 102.00, 102.07
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her grade be changed from airman first class to staff sergeant in
the Oct 98 time-frame.
_________________________________________________________________
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 is at
Exhibit A.
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, 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 Chief, Reserve of the Air Force Promotion Board Secretariat, HQ
ARPC/DPB, reviewed this application and indicated that there is
nothing to support the applicant holding the grade of staff
sergeant. Her personnel record consistently specifies her grade as
airman first class. All orders transferring her from assignment to
assignment and her participation record consistently reflect the
grade of airman first class. The Chief states that at no time
during her different assignments within the Air Force Reserve did
she ever meet the requirements for promotion to staff sergeant. In
order to be eligible for promotion, the member must hold a 5-skill
level in their Air Force specialty code (AFSC); have a minimum of 12
months’ time-in-grade; have three years’ satisfactory Federal
service for retirement; must complete the appropriate professional
military education (PME) courses; and, be a satisfactory participant
according to AFI 36-8001, Reserve Personnel Participation and
Training. As of 25 Jan 00, the applicant had one year of
satisfactory participation, completed in Jan 93, and had not
completed PME. The Chief recommends denial of the applicant’s
request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at
Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and disagrees with the
advisory opinion. She states that the advisory opinion is derived
from an incomplete personnel record. Contents of her records were
obviously lost or destroyed. She is sure there is not much in her
personnel records because when she requested them, they were not
available.
Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit E.
On 26 Jan 01, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records
(AFBCMR) staff requested the applicant provide any promotion orders,
leave and earnings statements, etc., that she may have in her
possession reflecting her grade of staff sergeant in the 1998 time
frame before presenting her case to the Board (see Exhibit F).
On 30 Jan 01, the applicant indicated that, due to the flood that
took place while she resided in California, her promotion papers
were lost (see Exhibit G).
_________________________________________________________________
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. We have
reviewed the entire application, including the documentation
submitted by the applicant reflecting her grade as staff sergeant.
However, we are not sufficiently persuaded that her contentions
override the comments provided by the Air Force. In this respect,
the Chief, Reserve of the Air Force Promotion Board Secretariat,
stated that at no time during her different assignments within the
Air Force Reserve did the applicant ever meet the requirements for
promotion to staff sergeant. In addition, the Chief stated that her
personnel record consistently specifies her grade as airman first
class and all orders transferring her from assignment to assignment
and her participation record consistently reflects the grade of
airman first class. The applicant has not provided persuasive
evidence that would corroborate her allegation that her grade should
be changed from airman first class to sergeant. Should she provide
evidence to substantiate her claims, the Board would be willing to
reevaluate her application. However, in view of the foregoing, we
agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant
has failed to sustain her burden that she has suffered either an
error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought.
4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance, with or without counsel, will
add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved. Therefore, the
request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 13 March 2001, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 May 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 31 Oct 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Nov 00.
Exhibit E. Letter fr applicant, undated.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26 Jan 01.
Exhibit G. Letter fr applicant, 30 Jan 01, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her senior raters were never contacted to prepare Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the SRBs; she was never provided an opportunity to review her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the FY97 SRB; and, the OSB for the FY98 SRB was incomplete. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s states that...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03148
ARPC notified her that she was not qualified because she had mistakenly been enrolled in and completed the Senior Non-Commissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA) course instead of the required NCOA and was referred to the ARPC Promotions Section. The confusion concerning promotion with completion of SNCOA is based on an exception listed in Table 4.2, Note 8, which states: “Do not promote an enlisted member to MSgt unless they complete NCOA. After completing the course, she was told more than once...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02311
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02311 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her effective date of promotion to Staff Sergeant (SSgt) (23 Jul 04) be corrected to reflect her date of rank (DOR) (1 Nov 01) with retroactive promotion pay. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted...
According to DPPPWB, based on the applicant’s DOR to senior airman of 15 Feb 00, the first time she will be eligible to be considered in the promotion process to staff sergeant would be cycle 01E5. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was promoted to the grade of airman on 15 Aug 97, rather than 15 Jul 97 when she would have completed the minimum six months TIG for promotion to airman. Exhibit D. Letter, applicant, dated 22 Jan 01.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00648
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00648 INDEX CODE:102.07 xxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 SEPTEMBER 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her date of rank (DOR) be adjusted to reflect 1 November 2005 versus 1 January 2007. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
We believe that the Air Force should have informed the applicant’s Reserve Program Manager that if the PRF was not received within 45 days of the convening of the selection board, the applicant would not be considered for promotion. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include the attached Promotion Recommendation Form, AF Form 709, be considered...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03018 INDEX CODE: 111.02, 134.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An expired Unfavorable Information File (UIF), with a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from her records; the line in Section V (Rater’s Comments) of her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 23 Apr 99, which made the...
His letters were available to selection boards and were, at the time of the boards, in his OSB. However, we do agree with the Air Force office of primary responsibility that the applicant’s officer selection briefs (OSBs) that met both promotion boards and the continuation board did in fact contain errors. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Promotion Board Secretariat, HQ ARPC/DPB, stated that the applicant provided a copy of the mandatory [in- and above-the- promotion zone (I/APZ)] and Position Vacancy (PV) date of rank (DOR) requirements for the 99 March Chaplains Captain Selection Board. As DPB previously stated, HQ ARPC/HC provided a letter attesting that the IMA chaplains did not have any PV quotas available for the FY00 Captains...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00977
Applicant was promoted to the grade of senior airman with an effective date and date of rank of 8 Jul 99. Based on information provided by the Air Force, he was selected for promotion to SSgt during cycle 00E5 (promotions effective Sep 00 - Aug 01). We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, in accordance with the governing Air Force instructions, airmen selected for promotion to SSgt, MSgt or CMSgt must complete in-residence...