RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02610
INDEX CODE: 102.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her promotion date and date of rank (DOR) be changed from 4 June 2002 to 19
April 2002.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was upgraded to a seven (7) skill level in April 2002, which made her
eligible for technical sergeant (E-6) at that time. She had already
possessed the time in service and time in grade as a staff sergeant (E-5).
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a letter from the 175
MDS/SG, dated 26 June 2002 and Special Order A& - 272, dated 7 June 2002.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Maryland Air National Guard (ANG)
in the grade of technical sergeant.
On 31 May 2002, the promotion recommendation was prepared by the medical
squadron manager and signed by the medical squadron commander on 1 June
2002.
Reserve Order A& - 272 dated 7 June 2002 indicates that the applicant’s
promotion was effective 4 June 2002, with a DOR of 4 June 2002.
On 7 June 2002, the wing vice commander approved the promotion.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFP recommended denial. They indicated that there was no error in
establishing the effective date of 7 June 2002 (SIC) for promotion of the
applicant based upon the promotion recommendation submitted by the unit
commander. The submission of the AF Form 2096 for award of the 7-skill
level was a separate personnel classification and training action. The
submission of the promotion recommendation was the vehicle that established
the effective date of promotion and date of rank.
The evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 25 October 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days. 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 an error or an injustice warranting a change in the
applicant’s promotion date and date of rank. The applicant contends that
she was upgraded to a seven (7) skill level in April 2002, which made her
eligible for technical sergeant. She has already possessed the time in
service and time in grade as a staff sergeant. The Board notes that there
is an error in the promotion order (Special Order A&-272) with the
applicant’s effective date and date of rank. The Board staff has been
advised by ANG/DPFP that the correct effective date of promotion and date
of rank is 7 June 2002 vice 4 June 2002. ANG/DPFP further indicated that
they would contact the applicant’s unit to make the necessary change
administratively. The Board also notes that the applicant did receive her
seven (7) skill level on 12 April 2002, which made her eligible for
promotion, however, she could not be promoted until the promotion
recommendation went through all proper channels. The recommendation was
prepared on 31 May 2002, and signed by the squadron commander on 1 June
2002. It was signed by the Military Personnel Flight on 4 June 2002 and
wasn’t approved by the wing commander until 7 June 2002. The Board is of
the opinion that there was no error in establishing the effective date of 7
June 2002 for promotion based upon the promotion recommendation that was
signed by the wing commander on 7 June 2002. In view of the above finding,
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 02-02610
in Executive Session on 10 December 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 August 2002, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 30 September 2002,
w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 October 2002.
BRENDA L. ROMINE
Acting Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00997
He returned to training on 7 September 2000, completed the training on 24 January 2001 and was promoted to SrA on 10 February 2001. Further, DPPI notes that the applicant refers to AFI 36-2502, Airmen Promotion, to validate his request for DOR change. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01437
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01437 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her general discharge be upgraded to honorable and her narrative reason for discharge be changed to something more favorable to allow for better employment opportunities. Then on 19 August 1988, after...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03654
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 National Guard (ANG) office of primary responsibility that ANG Instructions are clear on the establishment of DOR and subsequent requests for adjustments to such. The applicant had in excess of a two-year break in service from the Air Force before enlisting into the ANG establishing his DOR to be the date of his enlistment into the ANG. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02585
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02585 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to TSgt (E-6) be corrected from 1 July 2002 to 1 March 2002. The Board noted that the applicant has failed to provide the necessary documents requested by AFRC/DPMB, and other than his own assertions, we have seen no evidence that...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02908
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends disapproval. The applicant has not provided any documentation showing that his request was submitted through administrative channels to the final approval authority for...
INDEX CODE: 131.04 AFBCMR 01-00332 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT 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...
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...
Just prior to signing his contract, he was informed by the MEPS personnel that he would lose a grade to staff sergeant and the only way he could retain the rank of technical sergeant was to pursue action through the Board for Corrections of Military Records. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Enlisted Accessions and Enlistment Branch, AFPC/DPPAEQ, indicated that at the time of his enlistment, the applicant had accumulated 9...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02552
He was told he was eligible for a board hearing of his peers, but that if he would sign the demotion paperwork, he would be demoted with the understanding the Wing Commander could reinstate his grade to MSgt at any time. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In regards to the applicant’s claim he would have requested a board hearing had he known his DOR would have changed, DPFOC contends ANGI 36-2503 does not offer the opportunity for those demoted to appear before a board. The office responsible...