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
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01514
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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...