RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00490
INDEX CODE 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade
of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt/E-8).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There was an E-8 position open at his unit with only two people
qualified, another E-7 and himself. He soon found out that he was
not selected for the position. He feels that he should not have
been overlooked, because he was the most qualified and had the
better record. His goal from the beginning was to at least reach
the grade of E-8. He states the wing Inspector General (IG) stated
that he was turned down because of weak supervision. Prior to the
position becoming open, he received a “9” on his Airman Performance
Report (APR) for supervision. He does not understand how he could
get a “9” rating and be turned down, because he supervised 27
people over the course of 15 years in the Guard. He has received
letters of appreciation from military and civilian jobs for
outstanding supervision and work performance.
In support of his appeal, he provided a personal statement,
deactivation letters from his unit commander; certificates of
training, performance appraisals, and other supporting
documentation.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Based on available records, applicant completed 25 years, 3 months
and 22 days of total service for pay. He was credited with 20
years, 2 months and 28 days of satisfactory federal service. He
was promoted to the rank of Master Sergeant (E-7), with a Date of
Rank (DOR) of 1 May 1987. He was transferred to the Retired
Reserve effective 1 February 1997.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFRC/DPM reviewed this application and recommended disapproval.
In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program,
individuals must meet minimum eligibility requirements to include
recommendation by their supervisor and approval by the promotion
authority. Applicant was not recommended for promotion. In
addition, he failed to establish that an injustice took place, as
identified by the wing IG memo, dated 12 Jan 97.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant
on 5 Apr 02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
___________________________________________________________________
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 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 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 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 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
AFBCMR Docket Number 01-00490 in Executive Session on 25 June 2002,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Feb 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 7 Mar 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 02, w/atchs.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
As a result, the commander gave the applicant an LOR, initiated an unfavorable information file (UIF) and recommended that his name be removed from the promotion list in accordance with AFI 36-2504. Air Mobility Wing (AMW) Public Affairs Office commander did not put pressure on the applicant to remove the female individual and that the applicant should have stressed the professionalism of his office staff and not allowed the closeness and familiarity of his staff to get out of control. A...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02697
Every time the promotion issue came up he was told that he needed to complete Senior NCO Academy (SNCOA). 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 that absent supportive evidence from his commander recommending the applicant for promotion, favorable consideration of his request is not warranted. ...
The applicant was discharged from the Air Force because he was not promoted to 1st lieutenant. He urges the Board to please grant this requested hearing so that the truth in this can be made known. After reviewing the evidence of record and the documentation submitted with this appeal, we note that the commander’s recommendation that the applicant was not qualified for promotion to 1st lieutenant was found legally sufficient and was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force.
On 30 Sep 95, he was assigned to the Retired Reserve Section in the grade of E-7 and placed on the Air Force Reserve Retired List, awaiting pay at age 60. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel, HQ AFRC/DPM, has determined from their evaluation of the applicant’s case that he is not eligible for Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP) benefits. A copy of his response is appended at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00591
On 30 Sep 95, he was assigned to the Retired Reserve Section in the grade of E-7 and placed on the Air Force Reserve Retired List, awaiting pay at age 60. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Personnel, HQ AFRC/DPM, has determined from their evaluation of the applicant’s case that he is not eligible for Reserve Transition Assistance Program (RTAP) benefits. A copy of his response is appended at Exhibit...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, copies of his retirement orders and revoked orders, and other documents associated to the matter under review. The evidence of record indicates that, contrary to his own assertion, the applicant voluntarily resigned his ART position, which rendered him ineligible for RSSP under RTAP. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
The applicant should submit a request for the removal of the Article 15 to the commander who directed that it be placed in his records. In addition, the majority of the Board is sufficiently persuaded that the Article 15 should also be removed from the applicant’s record. Based on the available evidence of record, I find no basis upon which to favorably consider this portion of the application, and strongly recommend you deny the majority’s recommendation to remove the contested Article 15...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02044
The following is a resume of the applicant's recent EPR profile: PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION RECOMMENDATION 7 Jun 99 4 7 Jun 01 4 3 Jun 02 3 _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPM reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. Evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that his commander abused his discretionary authority or that his decision not to recommend the applicant for promotion was based on...
A complete copy of the HQ AFRC/DPM letter, with attachment, is at Exhibit M. A copy of the HQ AFRC/DPM letter, with attachment, was forwarded to the applicant’s counsel on 23 September 1999 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: Inasmuch as the applicant has been afforded due process through a new, appropriately conducted new PDRB, and that this PDRB’s findings with respect to his medical condition...
The Board directed that the applicant’s records be corrected to reflect that he was not released from active duty on 8 Mar 96 under the provisions of AFI 36-3209 (Misconduct), transferred to the Kansas Air National Guard on 2 Apr 96, discharged from the Kansas Air National Guard on 31 Jul 97, and assigned to the Retired Reserve on 2 Aug 97; but was continued on active duty until 31 Jan 99; and, that he was released from active duty on 31 Jan 99 for the Convenience of the Government...