ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01449
INDEX CODE: 108.09
APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In the applicant's request for reconsideration, he requests he be
reinstated to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant reenlisted into the Regular Air Force for a period of six
years on 19 February 2000. He is currently serving in the grade of
technical sergeant with a date of rank of 1 January 2002.
On 24 October 2001, the applicant's request to reinstate him to the rank of
technical sergeant at the time he reenlisted into the Regular Air Force was
considered and denied by the Board. For an accounting of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request, and, the rationale of
the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit
F.
On 26 April 2002, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration.
To support his request, he provided a personal statement and a letter from
the recruiter who enlisted him into the Regular Air Force. The applicant's
complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in
support of his appeal, we remain unpersuaded that the applicant’s should be
reinstated to the rank of technical sergeant at the time of his enlistment
into the Regular Air Force. We carefully considered the statements
provided by the applicant and his recruiter. While the letter from the
recruiter indicates there may have been some confusion during the
applicant's processing for enlistment into the Regular Air Force under a
new program, we do not find that it outweighs the governing regulations.
As previously noted, his options were clearly laid out for him prior to his
initialing and signing the AF Form 3006, Enlistment Agreement-Prior
Service, stating “I am enlisting into the pay grade E-5. I have no claim
to a higher grade. I understand my entitlement to further promotions will
be in accordance with regulations in effect at the time of my eligibility
for promotion and provisions do not exist to accelerate promotion due to
prior service or number of years I am enlisting for.” Accordingly, the
applicant’s request is not favorably considered.
2. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially 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 15 May 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 11 November 2001,
with exhibits A through E.
Exhibit G. Applicant's Letter, dated 26 April 2002, w/atchs.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00739 INDEX CODE: 129.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests that the grade of Sergeant be reinstated. The applicant’s request that the grade of sergeant be reinstated was considered and denied by the Board on 3 August 2000...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. 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.
Just prior to signing his contract, he was informed by the MEPS personnel that he would lose a grade to staff sergeant and the only way he could retain the rank of technical sergeant was to pursue action through the Board for Corrections of Military Records. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Enlisted Accessions and Enlistment Branch, AFPC/DPPAEQ, indicated that at the time of his enlistment, the applicant had accumulated 9...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00338
According to a letter provided by the applicant, the WAPS Testing Control Officer believed the applicant would test for promotion to the grade of TSgt in his old AFSC of 2A651B due to the system showing a date initially entered retraining (DIERT) of 9 Jan 04, which was after the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) of 31 Dec 03. We further note that the Air Force’s scoring his test against the wrong shred of the correct AFSC and erroneously notifying him that he had been selected for...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1992-01286A
______________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 11 March 1993, the Board considered and denied the following requests from the applicant (Exhibit XX): a. Specifically, the applicant asserts that the senior rater’s statement provides sufficient grounds for amending the PRF prepared on him for the CY91A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and his consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel by special selection board. Letter, Applicant, dated 16...
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-2005-01061
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-2005-01117
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-2005-01250
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-2005-01024
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...