RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-04040
INDEX CODE: 102.07
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of rank (DOR) to Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E-6) be changed
from 27 September 2001 to 14 June 2001 that would enable him to
qualify for Special Duty Assignment Pay.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Unit Manning Document reflects 14 June 2001 for his available
promotion. His DOR was not implemented until 27 September 2001.
His submission, including an AF Form 2096 and a letter of
recommendation from his commander, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently a member of the ---- Air National Guard (--
ANG), Western Air Defense Sector, and is now serving in the grade of
2nd Lieutenant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPI recommends denial. They note that the applicant’s
organization was going through a change that precipitated the
elimination of some positions and the creation of other positions.
The applicant was assigned against one of the new positions that
authorized the grade of TSgt. The vehicle with which the position
would be created, an authorized change notice (ACN), did not flow
through the Personnel system until September 2001. Thus the applicant
would not have been eligible for promotion in June 2001.
ANG/DPPI’s evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant’s vice commander (WADS/CV) responded on behalf of the
applicant and notes that the ANG/DPPI evaluation, while factually
correct, does not address circumstantial process shortfalls particular
to the applicant’s case. He states that his expectation was that the
Unit Manning Document (UMD) changes that would have affected a
promotion opportunity to TSgt for the applicant would be processed
expeditiously. Unfortunately the process took longer than expected.
The applicant’s promotion recommendation was ready to be processed on
14 June 2001 but was delayed until September 2001 due to personnel
system problems. WADS/CV feels that the applicant should not be held
accountable or punished because of administrative process shortfalls
and respectfully requests that the applicant’s request be granted.
The rebuttal, 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 to warrant the relief requested.
After reviewing the applicant’s submission and his vice commander's
statement of support, we find that the applicant fulfilled all
obligations and requirements necessary to be promoted to technical
sergeant on 14 June 2001. Accordingly, we recommend 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 technical sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of 14
June 2001 in the Air National Guard and the Reserve of the Air Force.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 8 July 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 20 Nov 2001, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 1 Apr 03, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Apr 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, WADS/CV, dated 16 May 03, w/atchs.
JOHN L. ROBUCK
Panel Chair
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC
[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary
BC-2002-04040
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 technical sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of 14 June
2001 in the Air National Guard and the Reserve of the Air Force.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-02499
The requested time is documented on his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, from his enlistment with the USMC. DPPI states that since the applicant voluntarily enlisted with NavRes, on 29 March 1990, at a lower grade (E-3), and, because he did not qualify for enlistment with the FL ANG as an E-6, he is not entitled to count the time spent in the USMC as an E-6. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-03646
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03646 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her discharge be upgraded from general (Under Honorable Conditions) to honorable and that her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that would allow her to reenlist. She was given the opportunity to consult counsel...
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-02209
His commander had not submitted his name to the promotion board. DPPI states the applicant’s records contain no evidence to support his statement that he was ever recommended for promotion. The NY ANG holds that had an oversight been committed regarding his promotion, it would have been corrected during the year that passed between the time the board met and the applicant retired.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-00305
On 27 November 2001, his commander notified him he was recommending his AGR tour be curtailed and that he be involuntarily discharged from the FLANG for misconduct, with a service characterization of general, under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). The IG recommended no further investigation into allegations of reprisal. On 27 October 2004, letter of the IG’s findings notified the applicant.
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 | CY2003 | BC-2002-03182
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was allowed to transfer from active duty Air Force to the Air National Guard (ANG) with a medical condition that was incurred while on active duty. DPPD states that based on the preponderance of the available evidence it appears that the applicant was reasonably capable of performing his military duties as an AGE mechanic up until the time of his active duty discharge. We took notice of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03860
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ANG/DPPI recommends denial of applicant’s request. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied.