RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01567
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of master sergeant effective 1 May 02.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 25 Apr 02, he was informed that despite his commander’s recommendation,
he could not be promoted on 1 May 02. He has 19 years, 10 months, and 23
days of satisfactory Federal service in accordance with his most recent
point credit summary, which are only generated after his
retirement/retention (R/R) date, 18 July. He was to be promoted to E-7
under the 12/20 rule. He was mobilized in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom on 5 Oct 01 and placed on full active duty on orders not to exceed
1 year. To date he has accumulated over 200 points, well over the 50
points constituting a good year.
Even though he is currently on active duty, he cannot compete for promotion
under the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS). There are no unit
vacancies available due to Stop Loss. His career field (security forces)
is critically undermanned and there is no relief in sight.
In support of his request applicant provided a personal statement, copies
of his ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summaries, and a copy of his NCO Academy
Correspondence Program diploma.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that the applicant
contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 27 Mar 81.
After serving approximately 11 years on active duty he was transferred to
the Air Force Reserve on 18 Jul 92. He was progressively promoted to the
grade of technical sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a
date of rank of 1 Jan 95. He currently has completed 19 years, 10 months,
and 23 days of satisfactory Federal service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPB reviewed applicant’s request and recommends denial. DPB states
that under a vacancy promotion opportunity, promotion to E-7 requires a 7-
skill level, 24 months time-in-grade (TIG) as an E-6, 8 years enlisted
service, 8 years satisfactory Federal service, completion of the NCO
Academy, satisfactory participant, meets body-fat standards, recommendation
by the supervisor, and a vacant higher grade position for the member to
occupy.
Under the 12/20 rule promotion to E-7 requires a 7-skill level, 24 months
TIG, 20 years satisfactory Federal service (as shown on the latest Point
Credit Summary), completion of the NCO Academy, meets body-fat standards,
and recommendation by the supervisor.
He appears to have completed the requirements for the 12/20 rule with the
exception of attaining 20 years of satisfactory Federal service as shown on
the Point Credit Summary. He will meet this requirement no sooner that 17
Jul 02, upon the completion of his R/R year.
He has earned more than the required number of points to earn a
satisfactory year of Federal service, he has just not completed the “year”
i.e. the 365 days required to constitute a year. Once the R/R is complete,
he will be fully eligible and promoted.
The DPB evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7 Jun
02 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 is
requesting promotion to master sergeant to be effective on 1 May 2002.
However, he had not met all the requirements to assume that grade on that
date, specifically he had not completed 20 years of satisfactory Federal
service. Although he had attained sufficient points required to earn his
20th satisfactory year of service, the year was not completed until 17 July
02, at which time he met the requirements for promotion. We see no
evidence of an error in this case and after careful consideration of the
documents he provided in support of his appeal, we do not believe he has
suffered an injustice. Therefore, 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 he has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no 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 Docket Number 02-01567 in
Executive Session on 7 Aug 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 31 May 02.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jun 02.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
In support of his request applicant provided a personal statement, a letter transferring him to the honorary Air Reserve, his promotion recommendation letter, and his Officer Reserve Corps appointment letter. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2000-02455C
The Air Force evaluation stated that there were some errors in the applicant's record as it appeared before the selection boards in question and recommended to the Board that corrections be made to his Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs), he receive SSB consideration for the FY00 and FY01 boards, and if not selected by either board, he be considered for continuation by Special Review Board (SRB). The Board concurred with the recommendation of the Air Force evaluator and recommended that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1998-01567A
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1998-01567 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His discharge be upgraded to honorable. We also find insufficient evidence to warrant a recommendation that the discharge be upgraded on the basis of clemency. _________________________________________________________________ The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00933
She was considered by the FY02 JAG and Chaplain Major Selection Board (V0402B), which convened on 19 Feb 01, and the FY03 JAG and Chaplain Other than Selected Reserve Board (W0403B), which convened on 22 Apr 02, but not selected for promotion by either board. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02992
In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a letter from the 701 MDS/CC certifying his outstanding performance as a member of the unit, two personal statements, a letter supporting the DOR change from the 10 AMDS/CC and endorsed by the 10 MDG/CC, a draft PRF that was not signed or submitted to the AFRES CSB, an endorsement letter from AFRESL/MLL, a vMPF RIP showing DOR timeline, an Education vMPF RIP, an FY03 AFRES Line and Health Professions Captain Select List, a AFRES Change to...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02091
AFI 36-2504, paragraph 2.7 requires, among other things, that officers have an outstanding record with at least 50 points for a year of satisfactory service during the last full R/R year at the time of submission of the PRF to be considered by a PV promotion board. While the applicant met all the other requirements for consideration by the contested Board, he had not completed an R/R year as of either 18 Dec 09, or as of the date the Board convened on 1 Feb 10. Accordingly, we recommend...
In a letter dated 12 Jan 02, the applicant's wife requested an extension of time in which to respond. A copy of his response, with attachment, is at Exhibit G. Then in a letter dated 30 Jan 02, the applicant requested that his case be temporarily withdrawn. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03824
In accordance with AFI 36-2504, he should have been transferred from the ADL to the RASL and subsequently promoted to major with an appropriate DOR as an active Reserve officer. 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 the applicable statutes and regulations were properly applied in determining the applicant's date of rank to the grade...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03168
The applicant filed an appeal with the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board, which denied her request. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant provides specific examples that she indicates cause the contested OPR to be in violation of Air Force Instruction 36-2406. In her response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-02013
Due to the fact that the member was assigned to the Nonobligated-Nonparticipating Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS), HQ ARPC/DPJA was responsible for notifying the applicant of the board convening dates. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, it appears the applicant was unaware that he would be competing for promotion at the FY97 and FY98 Air Force Reserve Major Boards. We believe this action is required in order to provide him with an...