RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-03370
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect his discharge rank as E-5/ Staff
Sergeant (SSgt) rather than E-4/Sergeant (Sgt).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He completed his non-commissioned officer course (NCO) and was
promoted to (SSgt) non-commissioned officer (E-5) approximately one
week before his discharge. His promotion was not updated or reflected
on his DD Form 214. He is applying for employment with the Government
and this will affect his rating.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 29 July 1983 for a
period of four years as an airman basic. He was progressively
promoted to the grade of senior airman (E-4) with a date of rank of 29
July 1986.
The applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty, indicates he was released under the provisions of AFR 39-
10, Expiration Term of Service on 28 July 1987, in the rank of senior
airman and transferred to the Air Force Reserves. He served four
years of active duty.
Special Order GB-072, dated 21 July 1987, awarded the Air Force
Achievement Medal to applicant. The Special Order refers to the
applicant as sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE states per AFR 39-13, E-4/senior airman are eligible for
appointment to NCO status if they meet certain criteria. Airmen are
eligible for NCO status if they have completed 12 months time in
grade. However, an appointment to NCO status does not entitle the
servicemember to a promotion to E-5. Therefore based on the rationale
provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9
January 2004, for review and response. 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the
Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Although the applicant was authorized NCO status, the applicant
submits insufficient evidence he applicant was recommended for or
promoted to SSgt/ E-5. Furthermore, appointment to NCO status does
not entitle the servicemember a promotion. Therefore, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in 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-
2003-03370 in Executive Session on 24 February 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Oct 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAE, dated 16 Dec 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.
OLGA M. CRERAR
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01749 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes be changed. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01749
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01749 INDEX CODE: 112.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His separation and reenlistment eligibility (RE) codes be changed. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
Applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 7 September 1982, in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). After reviewing the evidence submitted with this appeal, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s grade at the time of his discharge from the Air Force is either in error or unjust. However, there is no record of a promotion to the grade of staff sergeant in the member’s military records.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00261
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request that his rank of SSgt be restored. Additionally, the applicant has not provided any evidence to support his contentions of sexual discrimination. The applicant has provided no evidence with successfully disputes HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s interpretation of the regulation or showing that he was unjustly treated in regards to his rank at the time of...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01904
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPEP states that the applicant’s request is vague because he does not specify exactly which report he is contesting. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that due to the applicant’s new date of rank to A1C of 9 January 1995, he was promoted to Senior Airman (SrA) on 5 September 1996 (20 months time-in-grade). We took notice of the applicant's complete...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00675 INDEX CODE 110.00 110.02 100.06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His general (under honorable conditions) discharge be upgraded, his reason for separation be changed from “Misconduct – Drug Abuse” and his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed from 2B. The pertinent facts...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-00666
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2001-00666 INDEX CODE: 100.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 4J, “Entered into Phase I of the Air Force Weight Program, or the unit commander has declared the airman ineligible to reenlist for a period of Phase II or probation,” be changed. Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03291
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03291 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her deceased husband’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be corrected to show that his grade at the time of discharge was technical sergeant (E-6). ...
Discharge action was initiated in the applicant’s case due to her failure to meet military obligations by not completing her dependent care certification. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the that the application will only be reconsidered...
Discharge action was initiated in the applicant’s case due to her failure to meet military obligations by not completing her dependent care certification. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the that the application will only be reconsidered...