Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-01976A
Original file (BC-2002-01976A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                                 ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01976
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NO

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant's appeal for reconsideration, he requests reinstatement to
the grade of E-6.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty from 9 January 1986  to  6 January  1994
and was honorably discharged in the grade of  staff  sergeant  (SSgt)  after
serving 7 years, 11 months and 27 days of service.

On 2 October 2000, the applicant  was  honorably  discharged  from  the  Air
Force Reserve in the grade of  technical  sergeant  (TSgt).   On  3  October
2000, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) in  the  grade
of E-5 (SSgt).

The applicant previously submitted a request to have  his  grade  reinstated
to E-6, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1  March  2000  and  back  pay  from  3
October 2000.  On 25 March 2003, the  Air  Force  Board  for  Correction  of
Military Records (AFBCMR) considered and  denied  the  applicant’s  request.
For  an  accounting  of  the  facts  and   circumstances   surrounding   the
applicant's request, and the  rationale  of  the  earlier  decision  by  the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, at Exhibit I.

On  16  January  2004,  the  applicant   submitted   a   letter   requesting
reconsideration of reinstatement of his lost time in grade (Exhibit J).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After careful consideration of the applicant’s reconsideration  request  and
the documentation he  submitted,  we  are  not  persuaded  to  override  the
Board's original decision.  The statements from two individuals  who  attest
to alleged unfair practices within the Recruiting  Service  is  duly  noted;
however, these statements in
our  opinion  do  not  provide  persuasive  evidence  to  substantiate   the
applicant’s contentions regarding what he was  told  during  the  enlistment
process.  While we can understand his disappointment in not  being  able  to
test earlier with credit  for  his  prior  service,  the  fact  remains  the
applicant signed and initialed the AF  Form  3006  (Enlistment  Agreement  -
Prior Service).  The Enlistment Agreement  stated  the  rank  the  applicant
would enlist as, and that he had no claim to a higher  grade  and  that  his
promotions would be based on the  regulations  in  effect  at  the  time  of
enlistment and that no provisions were available  to  accelerate  promotions
due to prior service or number of years.  The Enlistment  Agreement  further
stated his DOR would be the date  of  his  enlistment  in  the  RegAF.   The
applicant has been afforded all opportunities that  a  returning  airman  in
his situation is entitled to under  the  relevant  Air  Force  Instructions.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary we find no  compelling
basis to warrant favorable consideration of this application.

________________________________________________________________

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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2002-
01976 in Executive Session on 19 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member
      Ms. Ann Cecile McDermott, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit I. Record of Proceedings, 26 Jun 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit J. Applicant’s Reconsideration Request, dated 16 Jan 04,
                 w/atchs.




                                             ROBERT S. BOYD
                                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01976

    Original file (BC-2002-01976.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He enlisted into the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 3 October 2000 in the grade of an E-5. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPAE states the applicant, at the time of his reenlistment, had 8 years and 28 days of TAFMS. The enlistment agreement further stated the applicant’s DOR would be the date of his enlistment in the RegAF.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01305

    Original file (BC-2004-01305.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01305 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank of technical sergeant be reinstated with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 March 2001 under the provisions of AFI 36-2604, Section 8. AFI 36-2002, Regular Air Force (RegAF) and Special Category Accessions, governing...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00224

    Original file (BC-2004-00224.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00224 INDEX NUMBER: 131.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be allowed to retain the date of rank (DOR), 1 May 94, of his promotion to staff sergeant (SSgt) while in the Air Force Reserve. On 17 Aug 93, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003028

    Original file (0003028.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03028 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to SSgt (E-5) be corrected from 29 Feb 00 to 2 Nov 97, his DOR when he served in the Air National Guard (ANG); his extended active duty (EAD) date reflect 2 Mar 99 vice 29 Feb 00, and his Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) tests...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03355

    Original file (BC-2007-03355.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on the applicant’s DOR as a SrA of 13 June 1992, the first time he was considered for promotion to the grade of SSgt was cycle 94A5. The AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In an undated letter, the applicant reiterated his contention that based on Air Force Pamphlet 36-2241, paragraph 15.41.2.SrA, which states that A1Cs are promoted to SrA with either 36 months TIS and 20...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03591

    Original file (BC-2003-03591.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03591 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade of senior airman (E-4) be reinstated. On 21 January 2003, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. After reviewing the applicant’s submission and the evidence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03963

    Original file (BC-2002-03963.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03963 INDEX NUMBER: 135.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) (E-5) with a date of rank (DOR) of 13 Nov 00 that he earned in the Air National Guard be established as the grade in which he was ordered to active duty. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01995

    Original file (BC-2004-01995.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Instead, they record Army Reserve promotions under the grade of sergeant (E- 5) on a Department of the Army (DA) Form 4187, Personnel Action. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 2 September 2003, she enlisted in the Air Force Reserve in the grade of airman first class, with a date of rank of 8 July 2000, rather than in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0101852

    Original file (0101852.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was medically cleared on 7 Aug 00 and enlisted in the RegAF on 5 Sep 00 in the grade of SSgt (E-5) with a DOR of 5 Sep 00. The applicant’s enlistment was processed in a timely manner and his DOR correctly established to equal his 5 Sep 00 enlistment date. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02668

    Original file (BC-2012-02668.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This TIG error prevented him from testing for MSgt in 2011 and 2012, and denied him consideration for promotion on both the FY11 and FY12 Master Sergeant Selection Boards. After a thorough review of his RegAF and ANG records, it is determined the applicant did not hold the rank of TSgt while serving in the RegAF and therefore, this DOR is equal to the date of his enlistment. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...