RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02114
INDEX CODE: 131.09
APPLICANT COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His effective date for advancement to a higher grade be changed from
12 July 2010 to 12 July 2003.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes the time he served in the Army Guard was not considered in
calculating his years of service. The time he served in the Army
Guard would give him the 30 years of service as of 12 July 2003. He
then would receive his E-6 grade in July 2003 versus July 2010. He
knows of another person who retired from the same base and this
person's Army and Air Force time was combined and totaled over 30
years and the person received his grade of E-7.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served in the Army National Guard from 27 June 1970
through 26 June 1976, and 29 August 1979 through 19 April 1981.
The applicant retired from the Air National Guard on 1 August 2000.
His has 20 years and 19 days of Total Active Federal Military Service
(TAFMS) and 26 years and 11 days of longevity service (Service for
base pay).
The applicant was administratively demoted from technical sergeant to
staff sergeant in 1997 for failure to meet the requirements of the
Weight Management Program (WMP).
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.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of
Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPP states the applicant's totals include all time served,
including his service in the Army National Guard. Pursuant to Title
10, U.S.C., Section 8964, retired enlisted members of the Air Force
who were on active duty at the time of retirement and retired with
less than 30 years of active service are entitled to be advanced on
the retired list to the highest grade held satisfactorily while on
active duty when their active service plus their service on the
retired list totals 30 years. The applicant has completed 20 years
and 19 days TAFMS and therefore must complete 9 years, 11 months and
11 days on the retired list before he can be advanced to the grade of
technical sergeant. Therefore, they recommend denial of the
application (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6
September 2002, for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the
Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
It appears that the applicant was properly credited with the
appropriate service. Based on the information in the applicant's
records, it appears his effective date for advancement on the retired
list was calculated in accordance with governing law and AF policy.
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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
02114 in Executive Session on 15 October 2002, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPPP, dated 3 Sep 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 02.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03148
ARPC notified her that she was not qualified because she had mistakenly been enrolled in and completed the Senior Non-Commissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA) course instead of the required NCOA and was referred to the ARPC Promotions Section. The confusion concerning promotion with completion of SNCOA is based on an exception listed in Table 4.2, Note 8, which states: “Do not promote an enlisted member to MSgt unless they complete NCOA. After completing the course, she was told more than once...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01847
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPX recommended denial indicating the applicant made no claim for sanctuary protection while serving on active duty (other than for training). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 16 Jul 04 for review and response. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04102
On 22 Jan 03, the applicant was reduced in grade from technical sergeant to staff sergeant, with a new date of rank of 21 Nov 02, as a result of an Article 15, due to government travel card (GTC) misuse. SAFPC has reviewed this application, and determined the applicant served satisfactorily in the grade of technical sergeant and should be advanced on the retired list in the grade of technical sergeant when he reaches 30 years of active service. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00224
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00224 INDEX NUMBER: 131.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to retain the date of rank (DOR), 1 May 94, of his promotion to staff sergeant (SSgt) while in the Air Force Reserve. On 17 Aug 93, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR,...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03370
Points for participation can only be credited for the dates the inactive duty was performed. Correction to the advisory is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and indicated that although the Reserve Order DA-01859 does assign him to the 514th AMW as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) he was in fact hired as a full-time Air Reserve Technician (ART). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01310
His next seven years of service were not considered satisfactory years of service and did not count towards a Reserve retirement. DPP’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Applicant agrees the only issue to resolve is that of whether or not 352 days of satisfactory service constitutes a satisfactory year of service or not. Therefore, since the applicant had...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00353
The Board may correct a record to reflect actions taken by reviewing authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally the Board may correct records related to action on the sentence of court-martial for the purpose of clemency. The applicant was charged with violating a lawful general regulation in Korea by transferring duty-free goods in violation of Article 92, UCMJ.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00233
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00233 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Total Federal Commissioned Service Date (TFCSD) of 19 October 1973 be adjusted to 30 December 1974 so that his Mandatory Separation Date (MSD) can be extended until 1 January 2005. The ARPC/DPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01276
AFPC/DPAMF2 noted that the applicant further cited a fifty-seven year old accession that he is aware of who had completed two years of active duty, separated, and was to return as a lieutenant colonel in Fiscal Year 2002 (FY02). A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPOC evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPPRRP reviewed this application and indicated that the United States Code (USC), Title 10, Section 8911, provides that the Secretary of the Air Force may, upon the officer’s...
For a reserve member to be credited with a year of satisfactory service, 50 retirement points are required. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant contends that he performed numerous days of creditable service that were not documented for which he received no credit. Based on the evidence of record and that verified by HQ Air Reserve Personnel Center...