RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01635
INDEX NUMBER: 135.01
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her grade of master sergeant (MSgt) held in the Air Force Reserve be
reinstated retroactive to the date she entered active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She fell short of the 15 years of active service required to retain
her grade of MSgt due to her voluntary decision to demobilize. When
she came on active duty, she was 29 days short of the days needed.
She also encountered numerous difficulties getting her records and
military pay straight. She provides details of the difficulties she
has encountered.
The applicant provides a summary of her record of performance in the
Reserve as a MSgt and of the level of responsibility she has since
returning to active duty. The applicant provides a letter of support
from a senior officer in her unit.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted and entered active duty in the Regular Air
Force on 7 May 03 in the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) (E-6) with
14 years, 7 months, and 27 days of prior active duty. She transferred
from the Air Force Reserve where she had held the rank of MSgt since 1
Jan 02. She is presently serving on active duty in the grade of TSgt.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPAE recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The
applicant’s enlistment grade was determined in accordance with
governing directives and in a fair and equitable manner. The
applicant was clearly aware of the grade that she was enlisting in.
To enlist in pay grade E-7 requires 15 years of Total Active Federal
Military Service. The applicant had 14 years, 7 months, and 27 days
of active duty service. AFPC/DPPAE attaches a letter from the Chief,
Enlisted Accessions, Air Force Recruiting Service, detailing the
events surrounding the applicant’s enlistment and return to active
duty. They point out that the applicant would not have been able to
come on active duty in her Air Force Specialty in the grade of master
sergeant because the Air Force is overmanned in it. The only reason
the applicant was granted an exception to policy was because she was a
technical sergeant.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
16 Jul 04 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response
has not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. 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. 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 Docket Number BC-2004-
01635 in Executive Session on 17 August 2004, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Mrs. Barbara R. Murray, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jul 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 13 Jul 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Jul 04.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03913
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When he was required to extend his current enlistment for 18 months to meet the service obligation for an in-place overseas tour, he requested to extend to his high year of tenure date (HYTD) of 8 April 2007. The applicant’s HYT as a Master Sergeant, at the time of his extension, was 8 April 2007 (24 years). _________________________________________________________________ The following members of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02560
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02560 INDEX NUMBER: 110.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reinstated to active duty or, in the alternative, be granted a Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code that will allow her to enter the Reserves. On 23 Jun 04, the CCQ recommended to the training...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03246
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/JA also recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The applicant opines that since the withholding was a discretionary action, he believes it appropriate to discuss the necessity of the action taken by his commander in light of his exemplary record up to the time the action was taken. He states the discretionary action was not required by the circumstances.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03701
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03701 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, be changed to show a favorable discharge and reenlistment eligibility (RE) code and to either be compensated monetarily or be credited for 20 years of service. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03920
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00703
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 04039
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends approval of the applicant's request to have her retired grade adjusted to MSgt rather than TSgt. There was no evidence of misconduct in the 3 years, 8 months the applicant held the higher grade of MSgt, and her demotion to the grade of TSgt was voluntary based on her reassignment to a lower graded position. The complete SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02982
On 1 December 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) requesting her EPR for the period 11 January 1999 through 15 September 1999 be upgraded from an overall “4” to an overall “5.” On 21 September 2000, the ERAB notified the applicant’s military personnel office that her appeal was considered and denied. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01344
The discharge action against the applicant was suspended on 11 Oct 02 in order to process the applicant’s retirement request. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE INFORMATION: SAFPC previously considered and recommended denial of the applicant’s request to retire. 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...