Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03920
Original file (BC-2003-03920.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-03920
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her original date of rank (DOR) of 1 Jul 01 for promotion to the grade
of technical sergeant  (TSgt)  be  reinstated;  and,  her  records  be
corrected to reflect that she was promoted  to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant (MSgt) on 1 Jul 03.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She was promoted to the grade of TSgt  on  1  Jul  01.   She  met  all
requirements for promotion.  On 4 Mar 02,  she  was  notified  that  a
promotion audit noted a discrepancy with her promotion.  As a  result,
her DOR was changed to 1 Mar  02  because  she  was  in  a  retraining
status.  This error was through no fault of her own.  She was assigned
to a MSgt position and would have been promoted to that grade on 1 Jul
03.

In  support  of  her  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  an   expanded
statement, and documentation pertaining to her promotion,  the  audit,
and position assignment.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

By Reserve Order P-0111, dated 29 Jun 01, the applicant  was  promoted
to the grade of TSgt effective and with a DOR of 1 Jul 01.

A letter, dated 27  Feb  02,  from  the  Military  Personnel  Division
(AFRC/DPM) indicated that during a  recent  audit  of  the  Air  Force
Reserve Command (AFRC) promotions, a discrepancy was  noted  regarding
the applicant’s promotion.  Namely, she was in a retraining status  at
the time of the promotion and did not hold a three-skill level in  the
promotion AFSC.  The applicant’s DOR was changed from 1 Jul 01,  to  1
Mar 02, which  was  the  first  promotion  cycle  for  which  she  was
eligible.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/DPM recommended denial noting the applicant was in  a  retraining
status at the time of her promotion to TSgt and did not have a  three-
skill level in the promotion AFSC as required  by  the  governing  Air
Force Instruction.   AFRC/DPM  indicated  that  as  a  result  of  the
applicant’s DOR being changed to 1 Mar 02, she did not meet  the  two-
year minimum time in grade requirement for promotion to the  grade  of
MSgt.

A complete copy of the AFRC/DPM evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 9 Jan
04 for review and response.  As of this date,  no  response  has  been
received by this office (Exhibit C).

In order to comply with the law to provide an applicant a copy of  all
communications which could directly or materially affect  his  or  her
case, a memorandum from the  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force
(SAF/MR) which will be  considered  by  the  Board  (Exhibit  D),  was
provided to applicant for review and comments on 6 Feb 04.  As of this
date, no response has been received by this office (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 an injustice warranting corrective action.  The evidence  of
record indicates the applicant was promoted to the grade of TSgt  with
a DOR of 1 Jul 01.  However, as a result of an audit  on  27  Feb  02,
which determined she was in a retraining status at  the  time  of  her
promotion, the applicant’s DOR was changed  to  1  Mar  02.   After  a
thorough review of all the facts and circumstances of  this  case,  we
are sufficiently persuaded her original DOR should  be  restored.   In
this respect, we note the applicant served in the grade of  TSgt  over
seven months before the change to her DOR.   Furthermore,  it  appears
the erroneous promotion was due  to  no  fault  of  her  own  and  she
faithfully discharged her duties while serving in  the  higher  grade.
In our view, allowing the applicant to serve in that grade and receive
the higher pay and allowances for such an extended period of time  and
then changing  her  DOR  was  unjust.   Therefore,  we  recommend  the
applicant’s records be corrected to reflect she was  promoted  to  the
grade of TSgt with a DOR of 1 Jul 01.  Since it appears she was  in  a
MSgt position and would have been promoted to  that  grade  two  years
from her original DOR, we also recommend she be promoted to the  grade
of MSgt with a DOR of 1 Jul 03.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

      a.  She was promoted to the grade  of  technical  sergeant,  Air
Force Reserve, effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 01.

      b.  She was promoted to the grade of master sergeant, Air  Force
Reserve, effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 03.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-03920 in Executive Session on 24 Feb 04, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Panel Chair
      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
      Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 03, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/DPM, dated 5 Jan 04.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jan 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MR, dated 30 Dec 03.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Feb 04.




                                   OLGA M. CRERAR
                                   Panel Chair










AFBCMR BC-2003-03920




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 , be corrected to show that:

            a.  She was promoted to the grade of  technical  sergeant,
Air Force Reserve, effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 01.

            b.  She was promoted to the grade of master sergeant,  Air
Force Reserve, effective and with a date of rank of 1 Jul 03.






    JOE G. LINEBERGER

    Director

    Air Force Review Boards Agency

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0000846

    Original file (0000846.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Available documentation indicated that the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Dec 88 in the grade of airman for a period of six years. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s staff request, the Directorate of Military Law, AFRC/JAJM, reviewed this application and recommended denial. JAJM indicated that the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02110

    Original file (BC-2003-02110.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPMB advises that enlisted personnel who are projected for promotion while on active duty do not carry that projected promotion to the Air Force Reserve. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his active duty projected promotion should be transferred to the Reserve. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02678

    Original file (BC-2004-02678.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 7 Mar 03, she was placed on a deferment due to a medical condition; as a result, the Feb 03 weight was excused. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant asserts the medical deferment expired in Jun 03 without a firm diagnosis being given. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Dec 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00703

    Original file (BC-2003-00703.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 21 Oct 02, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force for a period of four years and entered active duty in the grade of SSgt with a DOR of 21 Oct 02. He initialed and signed an AF Form 3006, Enlistment Agreement-Prior Service, stating he was enlisting in the grade of SSgt, that he had no claim to a higher grade, that entitlement to further promotions would be in accordance with regulations in effect at the time, and that provisions do not exist to accelerate promotion due to prior...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03805

    Original file (BC-2002-03805.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In her response to the Air Force evaluation, applicant reiterates her request to change her DOR to her original active duty date of 1 Jul 00 or in the alternative consideration for her time served in the Air Force Reserve. _____________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01741

    Original file (BC-2003-01741.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s performance reports and numerous awards are provided at Exhibit B. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises that, based on the applicant’s current and DOR of 9 Apr 03 for airman, the earliest cycle he would be eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt would be 07E5. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | 0102970

    Original file (0102970.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 April 1987, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve for a period of six years. The Air Force has indicated that the applicant has received incapacitation pay for the period 2 Nov 96 through 1 May 97. She has completed a total of 17 years, and 5 days of satisfactory Federal service as of her Retirement Year Ending (RYE) 22 July 2002.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0201426

    Original file (0201426.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01426 INDEX CODE 131.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the Reserve grade of master sergeant (MSgt). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02311

    Original file (BC-2007-02311.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02311 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her effective date of promotion to Staff Sergeant (SSgt) (23 Jul 04) be corrected to reflect her date of rank (DOR) (1 Nov 01) with retroactive promotion pay. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03169

    Original file (BC-2003-03169.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Disability processing records reveal a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was initiated on 17 Jun 03, and the results was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) which ultimately recommended she be discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay with a 10 percent disability rating. Because her disability rating was rated less than 30 percent disabling, she was not eligible for a disability retirement under the provision of Title 10, USC, Section 1201. Based on a...