RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01426
INDEX CODE 131.03
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the Reserve grade of master sergeant (MSgt).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was passed over several times for promotion to MSgt even though he
was more qualified and had more time in grade and service than the
women who were selected. Finally, he was not promoted because he was
due to retire within five months. He was treated shabbily. If he had
been promoted to MSgt he would have attained the grade of senior
master sergeant (SMSgt). Not even the Inspector General (IG) helped
him because he was not important enough.
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 19 May 1994, the applicant was honorably discharged in the grade of
technical sergeant (TSgt) from the New York Air National Guard and
transferred to the 916th Air Refueling Group, Air Force Reserves. His
records appear to indicate he has over 20 years of satisfactory
service for retirement. The applicant’s DD Form 149 indicates he
retired from the Reserves on 28 Sep 00.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFRC/DPM notes the applicant failed to provide specific instances
or supporting documentation to back up the claims he was unjustly
passed over for promotion. Further, AFI 36-2502 requires a member to
have 6 months retainability in order to be promotion eligible.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant contends he gave all the information he has. He
believes an investigation should be made to validate his claims. After
all that was done to him, he deserves the promotion.
A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The applicant was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded
that he should be promoted to master sergeant. Applicant’s contentions
are duly noted; however, we do not find these uncorroborated
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override
the rationale provided by the Air Force. We note the applicant appears
to believe that the Board should conduct an investigation verifying
his allegations. However, we would refer the applicant to AFI 36-2603
and AFP 36-2607. As indicated in these documents, the AFBCMR does not
contact witnesses in behalf of an applicant, nor is it an
investigative body. The burden of providing sufficient evidence of
probable material error or injustice rests with each applicant. Other
than his own statements, the applicant provided no evidence confirming
that he was discriminated against or was more qualified for promotion
than the female selectees. He also submitted no documents indicating
that the IG found any merit to his complaints. We therefore agree
with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed
to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an
injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the
contrary, 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
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 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 3 September 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter Member
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01426 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Mar 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 6 Jun 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Jul 02.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03920
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPM recommended denial noting the applicant was in a retraining status at the time of her promotion to TSgt and did not have a three- skill level in the promotion AFSC as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. AFRC/DPM indicated that as a result of the applicant’s DOR being changed to 1 Mar 02, she did not meet the two- year minimum time in grade requirement for promotion to the grade...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00043
On 14 Jun 95, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, with service characterized as general (under honorable conditions), and was issued a reenlistment eligibility status of “Ineligible.” Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, provided an investigative report which is attached at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/JAJ recommends that no...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Applicant was not recommended for promotion. 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.
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a member of the Air Force Reserve, was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) when her disability case was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) in December 1999, for a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder. Counsel provided a statement supporting the applicant’s requests to change the IG findings; credit satisfactory service to 20 plus years; change the AF...
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. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02847
According to emails provided by the applicant (Exhibit A), on 20 Mar 02 his squadron section requested a test date for him as he had not been identified on the promotion eligibility roster. A test date was obtained for him and, although he did not test in the regular window, his test score was considered for that testing cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00590 (Case 3) INDEX CODE: 107.00, 111.00 COUNSEL: AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Evaluation (LOE), AF Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation Sheet), dated 7 Sep 96, be removed from his records; and, that he be provided a letter of apology from the evaluator (Lt Col K---) of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-00230 INDEX CODE 135.02 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be credited with enough satisfactory years of service to be eligible for Reserve retired pay and that his retired pay grade be master sergeant (MSgt). On 15 May 99, the unit commander indicated the applicant’s performance was not...
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...
While his case file reflects a recommendation package for the award of the BSM was submitted on 6 December 1991, the final decision was not to award him for this decoration. The recommendation package is a recommendation only; the decision to approve or disapprove such a recommendation rests with a award approving authority. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has not provided evidence which was unavailable during the processing of the award recommendation.