RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03515
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His current rank of Airman Basic (AB) be changed to airman first class
(A1C).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He enlisted in the Florida Air National Guard (FLANG) while a senior
in high school. He believes he should have been promoted to A1C after
completing Basic Military Training School (BMTS). Due to his
recruiter misinterpreting a regulation, his promotion was not
submitted.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his
high school diploma, his enlistment paperwork, and a copy of his DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, a current member of the FLANG, began his military
career on 4 March 2004. He signed an enlistment agreement in the
grade of AB to serve with the FLANG for six years. He was assigned to
the 3E0X2 career field as a Power Production Apprentice. He began
BMTS on 19 June 2004, completed that training and completed his follow-
on technical training school on 20 October 2004 when he was awarded
his 3-skill level (3E032).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. DPFOC states the contention the
recruiter misread the regulation denying him promotion to A1C is not
correct. DPFOC contends ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2002, Enlistment
and Reenlistment in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air
Force, states airmen who graduate from BMTS may be promoted to A1C if
their Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) is included on the Status of
Resources and Training System (SORTS) list. While his AFSC is listed,
his current 3-skill level does not qualify for the SORTS list.
DPFOC’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5
August 2005 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 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
National Guard office of primary responsibility and adopt its
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Air National Guard
Instruction 36-2002 does include his AFSC however; his current skill
level in the AFSC is a 3-level and not the required 5-level or 7-level
he needed to be promoted early to the grade of A1C. 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-
2004-03515 in Executive Session on 25 October 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Nov 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 27 Jul 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03625
His DOR to SSgt was changed to his enlistment date. 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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | bc-2005-01005
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Prior to resigning from the Navy and accepting appointment in the FLANG, he was notified of his selection for promotion to 05 by the Navy. DPFOC cites Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2005, Appointment in Commissioned Grades and Designation and Assignment in Professional Categories – Reserve of the Air Force and the United States Air Force, wherein it is stated officers appointed in the ANG from other...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03620
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He attained the grade of SSgt while in the US Navy and contends he should receive credit for the time in grade he held in that rank. He was promoted to staff sergeant (SSgt) with a date of rank (DOR) of 22 March 2004. 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 office of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03103
He contends the Excellent rating and his eventual non retention for reenlistment in the FLANG were both forms of reprisal because he had filed a Military Equal Opportunity complaint against his supervisor. DPFOC states the rating of Excellent did not seem inappropriate and since it was not written using derogatory terms it should not be considered a referral EPR as indicated by the applicant. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01234
Grade Determination for Non-Prior Service (NPS) Enlistees, enlistment in the grade of E-3 is authorized when the applicant meets the following criteria: a. Presents General Billy Mitchell Award certificate showing successful completion of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) training program. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary which is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00209
Her application met the selection board on 1 July 2004 and she was selected for the position. She was promoted to the grade of MSgt with an effective date and DOR of 22 October 2004. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00027
On 20 Nov 13, the applicant was promoted to the grade of E-3. As such, he was never eligible for promotion to the grade of E-3, effective 21 Jun 13, as requested. A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP additional evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He argues a change to the FY13, R&R Initiatives added his AFSC 2T2X1 to the critical skills AFSC list, effective 1 Oct 12, as verified through his Force Support Squadron (FSS).
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04057
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibilities (OPRs) which are included at Exhibits C, D, E and F. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAF/A3O-AIF recommends denial of the applicants request for the award of the Aeronautical Badge because she did not have at least 36 months of operational flying to be permanently awarded the Aircrew Member Badge. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-3203,...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-02945
Each time he was told it was being worked. Was the selected individual eligible to apply for the 2R171 position as stated in applicable regulations at the time? _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03882
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was not counseled or advised of the options available to him regarding the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) or medical discharge from the Air Force. Further, he was not given adequate time to reach a decision on whether or not to submit a letter of exception to the IPEB regarding the Board’s findings. Furthermore, applicant submitted a letter...