Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00997
Original file (BC-2002-00997.doc) Auto-classification: Approved



                      RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-00997
            INDEX CODE:  131.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to Senior Airman (SRA/E-4)  be  changed  to   1
July 1999 in accordance with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2502.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He had reached the point in technical training  school  where  he  was
required to have a top-secret clearance.  His clearance action had not
been completed at that time and he was forced to return  to  his  unit
and wait until his clearance was completed.  Through no fault  of  his
own, he was not able to continue training until  over  two  years  had
passed.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  applicant  has  submitted  a   personal
statement,  letters  of  support  from  his  supervisors,  and   other
supporting documentation.

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the --- Air National Guard (--  ANG)  on  19
August 1997.  He began initial  active  duty  training  (IADT)  on  31
December 1997.  He completed basic military training and 10  weeks  of
basic electronic training.  He was  returned  to  his  unit  prior  to
completing his training because his security clearance  had  not  been
completed.  He was released from active duty on    17  September  1998
pending receipt of a top-secret clearance.  The clearance was obtained
on 28 January 2000.  He returned to  training  on  7  September  2000,
completed the training on 24 January 2001 and was promoted to  SrA  on
10 February 2001.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPPI reviewed this application and notes that the time between the
applicant’s enlistment and completion of his IADT did  seem  excessive
and due primarily to the applicant’s security clearance  issue.   DPPI
notes the applicant’s assertion that he had to file a  complaint  with
the Secretary of the Air Force Inspector General (SAF/IG) and that his
clearance was granted within a  couple  of  months  after  filing  the
complaint.  DPPI was not able to find any  conclusive  information  to
verify the  applicant’s  assertion.   Further,  DPPI  notes  that  the
applicant refers to AFI 36-2502, Airmen  Promotion,  to  validate  his
request for  DOR  change.   However,  DPPI  states  that  AFI  36-2502
pertains only to active duty airmen.  The correct  reference  for  ANG
enlisted members is  ANG  Instruction  (ANGI)  36-2502,  Promotion  of
Airmen.  At the time the applicant claims eligibility for promotion to
SRA, ANGI 36-2502 dated 29 October 1993, required that airmen  have  6
months time in service, 6 months time in grade and be fully  qualified
at the 3-level.  The applicant met these requirements  on  24  January
2001 and was duly promoted to SRA on 10 February 2001.

A revised ANGI 36-2502 was published on 25 August  2002  that  allowed
commanders to promote airmen to SRA who were assigned to  a  specialty
that required lengthy formal training (excess of 139 days), without  a
3-skill level.  Accordingly, the applicant was eligible for  promotion
to SRA on 25 August 2000 and consequently was eligible  for  promotion
to Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5) on      25 August 2002.

Based on the information presented, DPPI  recommends  the  applicant's
DOR to SrA be changed to 25 August 2000, the  earliest  possible  time
under the 25 August 2000 instruction, that his DOR to SSgt be adjusted
to reflect 25 August 2002 and that he be entitled to all back pay  and
allowances.

DPPI’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
23 May 2003 for review and comment within 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.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice.   After  reviewing  the  evidence  of
record, we find that the  applicant  was  denied  the  opportunity  to
progress in training and therefore compete for promotion,  through  no
fault of his own, but  through  negligence  in  the  handling  of  the
background investigation conducted to grant his  clearance.   We  took
note of ANG/DPPI’s recommendation to provide relief to  the  applicant
on dates provided by regulation.  However, we are of the opinion  that
the injustice done to the applicant was of such  magnitude  so  as  to
grant the relief requested by the applicant.  In view of the above and
in an effort to remove any possibility of an injustice,  we  recommend
that his date of rank to Senior Airman and his date of rank  to  Staff
Sergeant be adjusted by  correction  to  his  records  to  the  extent
indicated below.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

      a. He was promoted to the reserve grade of senior airman, with a
Date of Rank (DOR) and a Promotion  Effective  Date  (PED)  of  1 July
1999.

      b. He was promoted to the reserve grade of Staff Sergeant,  with
a DOR and PED of 1 July 2001.
______________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 1 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
      Ms. Marilyn Thomas, Member
      Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 9 May 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.




                                   BRENDA L. ROMINE
                                   Panel Chair



                         DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
                                WASHINGTON DC




[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary


BC-2002-00997




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a. He was promoted to the reserve grade of senior airman, with a
Date of Rank (DOR) and a Promotion  Effective  Date  (PED)  of  1 July
1999.

      b. He was promoted to the reserve grade of staff sergeant,  with
a DOR and PED of 1 July 2001.








     JOE G. LINEBERGER

     Director

     Air Force Review Boards Agency


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01514

    Original file (BC-2003-01514.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He had 4 years TIS and 3 years TIG at the time of his enlistment and other than the 3-level waiver, was fully qualified to be promoted to the grade of Senior Airman/E-4. A waiver was submitted, however the waiver was not timely approved because it lacked the necessary proof of certification. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03620

    Original file (BC-2004-03620.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He attained the grade of SSgt while in the US Navy and contends he should receive credit for the time in grade he held in that rank. He was promoted to staff sergeant (SSgt) with a date of rank (DOR) of 22 March 2004. 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 office of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00205

    Original file (BC-2003-00205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 January 1998 in the grade of SrA. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. 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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02552

    Original file (BC-2005-02552.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00997

    Original file (BC-2003-00997.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00997 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: ZIMMERMAN & LAVIN HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reinstated in the Texas Air National Guard (TXANG) Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program, effective 15 April 2002, with all pay that was lost (less her subsequent earnings as a civil service technician) or in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02520

    Original file (BC-2002-02520.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    The DPFP 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 6 December 2002 for review and response (Exhibit D). Based on the evidence, it appears that no error occurred at the time the applicant transferred from the Army National Guard to the Air National Guard on 23 September 2000. Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPFP, dated 12 November 2002.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01622

    Original file (BC-2007-01622.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. ______________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 29 November 2007, under the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03736

    Original file (BC-2002-03736.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the applicant's enlistment in the Air National Guard in the grade of Airman Basic was in accordance with ANGI 36-2002. However, in view of the fact that the applicant accrued over 30 quarter hours of college credits by the time she graduated from high school in June 2002, we believe she should be entitled to the benefit of this achievement. JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04888

    Original file (BC 2013 04888.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1P recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The mere fact that a member meets all the eligibility criteria for promotion does not automatically guarantee promotion to the next higher grade; the immediate commander must first recommend the airman...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03451

    Original file (BC-2002-03451.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03451 INDEX CODE: 102.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 14 months time in grade as an E-4 that he accrued in the Army be applied towards his date of rank (DOR) in the Air National Guard (ANG). He enlisted as an Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with a date of rank of 2 February 2001 and...