RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00676
INDEX CODE: 131.09
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The date of rank (DOR) and effective date of his promotion to the grade of
senior master sergeant be changed to reflect 24 Aug 01, rather than 1 Feb
02; and that he receive all back pay and allowances thereof.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was recommended for promotion by a promotion board on 24 Aug 01. He was
informed the next day that a control grade was not available and that he
could not get promoted until a control grade became available. He was
promoted 5 months later.
In support of his request applicant provided a copy of his promotion order
and a memorandum notifying him of his promotion board. His complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Based on data extracted from the personnel data system it appears that the
applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 14 Dec 86 and was separated
on 24 Jan 90. He entered the Air National Guard on 20 Apr 90 as an Active
Guard/Reserve (AGR) member and has been progressively promoted to the grade
of senior master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a
date of rank of 1 Feb 02.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFP reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. DPFP states
that the multi state unit is allocated 21 E-8 slots, which are, controlled
grades. 19 Slots were occupied, 2 were used to promote individuals who met
the promotion board prior to August 2001. The additional allocation
received in May 2001, was used to promote an individual who had previously
met the promotion board.
His unit planned on promoting him using an upcoming allocation based on a
member’s retirement, which was August 2001. Unfortunately, the other unit
within the state held a promotion board and used the allocation during the
same time of his promotion board. He could not be promoted because a
controlled grade was not available. Controlled grades cannot be held for
an individual and are used on a first come first serve basis. Active Guard
Reserve (AGR) members cannot be promoted unless the state has a controlled
grade available. An allocation was not available for the applicant until
February 2002, at which time he was promoted. The DPFP evaluation, with
attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states that the control grade roster provided by DPFP is from
April 2001 and does not reflect the information that it should. He asks
whether the monthly report from August should be used since that was the
month in which he was to be promoted. The control grade roster should have
reflected one additional control grade based on the retirement of an
individual in another ANG unit, which would have left an extra vacancy
available. This would reflect an error on the part of the monthly control
grade report. DPFP states that control grades cannot be held for members.
If you look at the report submitted, it clearly shows promotions and
separations and queue needs. If they cannot be held then why does the list
reflect such holdings for future promotions.
His complete submission is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. In this regard, the applicant was
recommended for promotion by a promotion board in August 2001. However,
based on the promotion criteria for Title 32 AGRs, the applicant could not
be promoted until a controlled grade became available. Therefore, after a
thorough review of the applicant's submission, we agree with the opinion
and recommendation of the Air National Guard office of primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that he has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence
of persuasive 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 Docket Number 02-00676 in
Executive Session on 18 Jul 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Feb 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 30 May 02.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jun 02.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, Jr.
Panel Chair
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...
The applicant was progressively promoted to the Reserve of the Air Force and Air National Guard grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5), with a promotion service date (PSD) of 11 Jan 87 and an effective date of 15 May 87. By ANG Special Order AP-124, dated 5 Jun 98, he was promoted to the Reserve of the Air Force and Air National Guard grade of colonel (O-6), with a PSD and effective date of 30 Jun 96. In the applicant’s case, as a colonel (O-6), he could have served to age 60 or 30 years of...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-03128
The IO further noted that any alleged lack of a succession plan may be evidence of a management problem, but in itself is not a sufficient force management reason to non-retain personnel. The report is appended at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/JA reviewed applicant's request and recommends approval of his request for reinstatement in the ANG and that he receives all back pay and allowances. Based on the above...
INDEX CODE: 131.09 AFBCMR 02-00088 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03451
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03451 INDEX CODE: 102.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 14 months time in grade as an E-4 that he accrued in the Army be applied towards his date of rank (DOR) in the Air National Guard (ANG). He enlisted as an Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with a date of rank of 2 February 2001 and...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 are at Exhibit A. The remaining 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 at Exhibit...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that he understands that ACP was not designed for members serving in different pay status formats. The available evidence indicates that the applicant terminated his ACP agreement when he left AGR status and became a Traditional Guardsman prior to completing his ACP service commitment. ...
He enlisted in the Air National Guard (ANG) on 6 Dec 74 and continued his military service until he was discharged on 15 Apr 97 from the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force, with a general discharge for a pattern of misconduct and fraudulent entry. (2) Between approximately Jan 95 and Aug 96, pursuant to the applicant’s direction and orders, government employees removed aluminum flooring from an Air National Guard (ANG) building, which was later sold by the applicant and...
DPFP states that when he enlisted NGR 39-9, Grade Determination for Prior Service Enlistees, was the applicable regulation. After reviewing the available evidence of record it appears that his grade and date of rank upon enlistment into the Air National Guard were properly determined. Accordingly, 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...