Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100323
Original file (0100323.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00323
                       INDEX CODE:  111.02

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of  rank (DOR) be  reinstated  to its  original date of 1 Mar
98.  He would also like his effective date  of  promotion  changed  to
allow him to receive back pay.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  squadron  commander   reinstated   his   DOR   and   because   of
administrative  shortfalls  it  wasn’t  accomplished.   He  has  tried
through several administrative channels to have this corrected and  is
now appealing to the BCMR.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular  Air  Force  in  the
grade of technical sergeant (TSgt).

The applicant was tentatively  selected  for  promotion  to  Technical
Sergeant during the 97E6 promotion cycle.  His promotion was placed on
hold due to pending judgement by civilian court.   The  applicant  was
convicted by a civilian court, which made him ineligible for promotion
per AFI 36-2502.

The wing commander reinstated his promotion eligibility  effective  30
Dec 99.

The applicant was considered and selected for promotion  to  TSgt  for
cycle 00E6.  He was promoted to the grade of TSgt effective  and  with
DOR of 1 Sep 00.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR  Section,  AFPC/DPPPWB,  reviewed   this
application and stated  under  normal  circumstances  the  applicant’s
promotion would have been effective on 1 Mar  98,  but  his  commander
placed his promotion in a withhold status  pending  outcome  of  civil
court proceedings.  The civilian court convicted the applicant and his
punishment consisted of summary probation  for  2  years,  $500  fine,
state penalty fund assessment, and 240 hours of community service.  In
accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, Rule O, an enlisted member  is
ineligible  for  promotion  when  convicted  by  civilian   court   or
undergoing punishment, suspended punishment/sentence, probation,  work
release program, or any combination of these or similar court  ordered
conditions.   The  ineligibility  period  for   promotion   based   on
conviction by civil court is equal to the maximum confinement for  the
same or closely related offense under the manual  for  court  martial.
This  conviction  resulted  in  the  applicant  being  ineligible  for
promotion for a period of 5 years.  The applicant was  not  exonerated
of any wrongdoing, and as a result, his promotion to TSgt was  neither
appropriate nor warranted.   Based  on  the  rationale  provided  they
recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit C).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9
Mar 2001, for review and response.  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.  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
and adopt their rationale as the basis for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   Although
the applicant pled Nolo Contendre as part of a plea  bargain,  he  was
nevertheless convicted  of  a  lesser  offense  by  a  civilian  court
rendering  him  ineligible  for  promotion  until  19  May  02.    The
applicant's new commander was apparently miscounseled  that  he  could
reinstate the applicant's promotion which he  did  and  the  applicant
assumed the new rank with a date of rank of 1  Mar  98.   However,  we
note that only the  Wing  Commander  can  waive  any  portion  of  the
ineligibility period; and secondly, the applicant was never exonerated
of any wrongdoing.  Therefore, we believe the  promotion  effective  1
Mar 98, was neither appropriate or warranted.  The applicant  has  not
established he was  treated  any  differently  than  others  similarly
situated.  It appears the Wing  Commander  rendered  some  measure  of
clemency when he reinstated the applicant's promotion  eligibility  in
Dec 99, well before the  end  of  the  ineligibility  period  and  the
applicant  has  been  subsequently  promoted.   In  our  opinion,  the
applicant has not established that he has been the victim of either an
error or an injustice.  In view of the foregoing and in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, 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 8 May 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603.

            Mr. Teddy L. Houston, Panel Chairman
            Mr. John L. Robuck, Member
            Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 01, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Feb 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Mar 01.




                       TEDDY L. HOUSTON
                       Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002818

    Original file (0002818.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01747

    Original file (BC-2003-01747.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a 15 Nov 02 letter to the applicant, the Superintendent of the --rd Wing IG with the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) advised that, following an interview, the briefer denied having the conversation with the applicant and asserted she had briefed countless individuals regarding declination statements and was well aware of the ramifications. The handout directed him to the MPF for counsel if his desire was to separate. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100201

    Original file (0100201.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s board score for the 99E8 board was 397.50. The applicant did provide a letter of recommendation from the commander supporting the upgrading of the EPR ratings and changes to his original comments. It is unreasonable to conclude the commander now, over 10 years later, has a better understanding of the applicant’s duty performance for that time period.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01013

    Original file (BC-2007-01013.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPPPWB obtained an AFPC/JA opinion regarding the IG’s substantiated allegation of abuse of authority and whether or not it constituted an error or injustice. An Air Force IG investigation substantiated an allegation that the applicant’s commander withheld his promotion to TSgt beyond the 12 months allowed without approval from the wing commander. JAMES W. RUSSELL III Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant Secretary AFBCMR...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0101905

    Original file (0101905.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01905 INDEX NUMBER: 131.02 XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His promotion to technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) earned during the 99E6 promotion cycle and cancelled due to unsatisfactory progress on the weight management program (WMP) be reinstated. His commander cancelled...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003233

    Original file (0003233.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. On 30 Sep 99, applicant’s supervisor did not recommend her for reenlistment due to the referral EPR. A complete copy of the their evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five-page letter responding to the advisory opinions.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002106A

    Original file (0002106A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002866

    Original file (0002866.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Since filing his appeal, he has been promoted to the grade of SRA with a DOR of 15 Feb 01. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this appeal are contained in the applicant’s military records (Exhibit B), and the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force (Exhibits C, D and E). TEDDY L. HOUSTON Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-02866 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100097

    Original file (0100097.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Promotion eligibility is regained only after receiving an EPR with an overall rating of “3” or higher that is not a referral report, and closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the next cycle. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. The Chief, Performance Evaluations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed the appeal and notes the Medical Consultant’s review of the applicant’s medical condition. A complete copy of the evaluation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003277

    Original file (0003277.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 00-03277 INDEX CODE 126.02 131.09 129.04 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the grade of E5/staff sergeant (SSgt) and promoted to E6/technical sergeant (TSgt) by setting aside the punishment imposed on him by Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dated 31 Oct 95,...