RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03301
INDEX CODE: 131,04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS:
Reinstatement of his original line number (2885) for promotion to the
grade of master sergeant (E-7) during cycle 01E7, with his original
date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 Dec 01.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His line number was reinstated; however, his original DOR and
effective date were not reinstated.
He should receive his original DOR and effective date because he was
given incorrect information from several offices concerning policies
for reinstatements during Stop Loss.
In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of letters
from HQ ACC/DP, 97IS/CC, 55 MSS/DPM and numerous e-mails concerning
his promotion, and additional documents associated with the issues
cited in his contentions. The applicant’s complete submission, with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
12 Aug 82. The applicant’s most recent reenlistment was on 12 Aug 02
for a period of 4 years. He is currently serving on active duty in
the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with an effective date and date of
rank of 1 May 02.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied. DPPPWB stated
that the applicant was selected for promotion to master sergeant (E-7)
(promotions effective Aug 01 Jul 02), with a promotion sequence number
of 2885, which incremented 1 Dec 01. However, he chose to decline the
promotion in lieu of retirement. He subsequently became affected by
Stop Loss and was not allowed to retire. DPPPWB stated that, under
normal circumstances, members who decline promotion are not given the
opportunity to have their line numbers reinstated. However, those
affected by Stop Loss were treated as exceptions to policy, but only
in the fact that their line numbers could be reinstated, not their
original DOR and effective date. The applicant made a conscious
decision to decline his promotion. Had he not been affected by Stop
Loss, he would have retired as a technical sergeant (E-6). However,
an exception to policy was granted to all individuals in his same
situation, all aware of the fact that they would not receive their
original DOR and effective date. It is unfortunate that the applicant
received incorrect information regarding his reinstatement, but it
would not be fair and equitable to others with similar circumstances
to approve his request. The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with
attachments, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant submitted a letter of support from his current
commander. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is
at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Based on evidence presented, as well
as the support from his superiors, it is the opinion of the Board
majority that the applicant was misinformed of the consequences prior
to declination of his promotion and therefore based his decision to
decline his promotion on the compelling information he received.
Inasmuch as the applicant was miscounseled regarding his promotion
reinstatement, the Board majority believes that the applicant’s
original date of rank for master sergeant should be restored. In view
of the above and in an effort to remove any possibility of an
injustice, the Board majority recommends that the applicant’s records
be corrected as 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 he was promoted to the
grade of master sergeant (E-7), with an effective date and the date or
rank of 1 December 2001.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 30 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Edward C. Koenig III, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
By a majority vote, the Board recommended granting the relief sought
in this application. Mr. Pettit voted to deny the applicant's request
but did not desire to submit a minority report. The following
documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket
Number 02-03301.
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Oct 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Nov 02.
Exhibit E. Letter from Applicant, dated 31 Dec 02, w/atchs.
EDWARD C. KOENIG III
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 02-03301
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 he was promoted
to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with an effective date and the
date or rank of 1 December 2001.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01747
In a 15 Nov 02 letter to the applicant, the Superintendent of the --rd Wing IG with the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) advised that, following an interview, the briefer denied having the conversation with the applicant and asserted she had briefed countless individuals regarding declination statements and was well aware of the ramifications. The handout directed him to the MPF for counsel if his desire was to separate. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02758
DPPPE contends, as did the ERAB, that the applicant failed to provide specific documentation to support any of his allegations as well as being unclear in his statement citing evidence of a miscommunication between two other parties. (Exhibit D) _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 November 2002, for review and comment within 30 days. After...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03428
He requested a new retirement date of 1 Jul 03. First, he states that the cause of the “glitch” is blamed on his retirement date cancellation not making it through the system in time, when the fact is, regardless of whether he cancelled his retirement date, he was under Stop Loss and was eligible to compete for promotion, so his retirement flowing through the system should not have mattered. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or...
He be awarded the Purple Heart Medal, the Air Force Overseas Short Tour Ribbon, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant's request and recommends that the applicant's request be time barred. In further support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement and additional copies of documents he previously provided.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP notes the applicant contends she was not time-in-grade (TIG) eligible to receive senior rater indorsement based on her date of rank (DOR). After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that Section IX of the 24 Oct 01 EPR should reflect she was not TIG- eligible for a senior rater indorsement. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Jul 02.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01447 INDEX CODE: 110.00 . _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: After serving 4 years and 1 month in the United States Navy, he contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 22 Feb 82. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 31 July 2002 the applicant was released from active duty in the grade of technical sergeant with an effective date of promotion of 2 May 2002 and retired in the same grade on 1 August 2002. Consequently, since the effective date of promotion determines eligibility to receive pay and allowances in that grade, the applicant would not be entitled to back pay and allowances as requested. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00741
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAAD indicated that AFI 36-2110, Paragraph 2.29.6.3, requires a member who refuses to get PCS retainability to sign an AF Form 964 (PCS, TDY, or Training Declination Statement). The applicant executed the AF Form 964 and the assignment was cancelled and his promotion line number was taken away. The applicant stated that his MPF failed to inform him that he would lose his promotion line number to...
On 12 Apr 99, the Deputy for Air Force Review Boards directed the applicant be promoted to E-8, with an effective date of 1 Feb 88, and that his grade at the time he was relieved from active duty and ultimately retired was E-8 rather than E-7; and, that his narrative reason for separation be changed to “voluntary retirement.” The applicant has provided a copy of the Record of Proceedings (ROP), Docket Number 98- 02050, at Exhibit A. On 12 Apr 99, the AFBCMR promoted him to senior master...
On 18 July 2000, she was informed that AFPC/DPAAD2 approved her request to withdraw the PCS declination statement and that she would not be able to test out of cycle because her package was not submitted in time. The applicant states that she turned down an assignment but was approved to stay in and believes she would have been approved before the cut off date for testing if her package had not been lost and resubmitted. After the commander disapproved her package, the FSO received the...