RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02697
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant (E-9).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His commanders were provided erroneous information regarding the promotion
requirements for promotion to E-9. The information they were provided was
based on "perception," not the requirements of the AFI. They were told
that Professional Military Education (PME) was required when it was not.
He has been in an E-9 position since October 1994. Every time the
promotion issue came up he was told that he needed to complete Senior NCO
Academy (SNCOA). However, none of the commanders verified that criteria.
It appears that the AFIs are to be used as "guidance" and not as
"directives."
In support of his request, applicant provided copies of his Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs) closing on 6 Feb 01, 6 Feb 99, 13 Apr 87, and 13
Apr 86; copies of email communications, an excerpt from AFI 36-2502, Airman
Promotion Program; and, documents associated with his Inspector General
(IG) complaint. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Data extracted from the personnel data system reflects that the applicant,
a former Air Force Reserve enlisted member, was promoted to the grade of
senior master sergeant on 1 Nov 83. His name was placed on the Retired
Reserve List on 16 Jul 02. He has completed 31 years of satisfactory
Federal service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/DPM reviewed applicant's request and recommends denial. DPM states
that he is correct in stating that SNCOA is not needed for promotion to E-
9. Since he provided no documentation from his commanders indicating that
he would have been promoted to E-9, approval of his request cannot be
recommended. The DPM evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 11 Oct
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 that would warrant the applicant's
promotion to the grade of chief master sergeant. 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. Therefore, we adopt their rationale as the basis
for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error
or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
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 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 Docket Number 02-02697 in
Executive Session on 18 Dec 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Aug 02.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 12 Sep 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Oct 02.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Vice Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00419 INDEX CODE 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated into the Air Force Reserve. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00661
In May 95, the Air Force Medical Review Board determined that he was medically disqualified for worldwide duty. By letter, dated 6 Feb 03, the Board’s staff requested that the applicant provide any and all pertinent records that he had in his possession, as well as any medical documentation from any private physicians who may have provided him medical treatment (Exhibit E). The Medical Consultant noted that the applicant’s heart attack triggered medical disqualification by the Air Force Reserve.
On 25 April 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for a period of six years. The Air Force has indicated that the applicant has received incapacitation pay for the period 2 Nov 96 through 1 May 97. She has completed a total of 17 years, and 5 days of satisfactory Federal service as of her Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 22 July 2002.
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01536
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Base on available records, the applicant, was an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) enlisted member with 17 years of satisfactory federal service. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/DPM reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating, in part, applicant states he completed all...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02650
He retired from the Air Force on 31 Jul 03. DPPP states he was time-in-grade eligible for senior rater endorsement based on the new DOR at the time of the 30 Sep 01 report. In this respect, we note that based on the applicant’s original 1 Jun 01 date of rank (DOR) to the grade of senior master sergeant, he was ineligible for promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant prior to his 31 Jul 03 retirement.
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...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Available documentation indicated that the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Dec 88 in the grade of airman for a period of six years. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s staff request, the Directorate of Military Law, AFRC/JAJM, reviewed this application and recommended denial. JAJM indicated that the...
Available records reflect that the applicant was retired from the Air Force Reserve on 16 December 1996 by reason of medical disqualification, in the grade of Technical Sergeant (E-6). However, we do not find evidence that the applicant’s commander approved a recommendation for promotion. Exhibit H. Medical Records.