RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03518
INDEX CODE: 131.05
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSgt) effective
1 September 2004 rather than 1 November 2004.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The eligibility requirements for promotion to the rank of MSgt were
met prior to the promotion month of 1 Sep 04.
In support of her appeal, applicant submitted email correspondence
between her personnel office and HQ ARPC.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, an individual mobilization augmentee (IMA), is
currently serving in the grade of master sergeant, with an
effective date and date of rank of 1 November 2004, as a personnel
craftsman. She was nominated for the Calendar Year (CY) CY04A
Promotion Enhancement Program (PEP) promotion board that convened
in Mar 04, however, she was not selected.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ ARPC/DPB reviewed this application and recommended denial.
Applicant was not eligible for vacancy promotion until the senior
master sergeant (SMSgt) occupying the position she occupied was no
longer assigned to the position. The SMSgt retired during the
month of Oct 2004, freeing up the position so the applicant could
be promoted. She was promoted on 1 November 2004, the earliest
vacancy promotion she could receive.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reiterated her original contentions that her records
should be corrected to reflect her promotion to master sergeant
effective as of 1 September 2004.
In support of her appeal, applicant provided a personal statement
and a copy of emails between her personnel office and HQ ARPC.
Applicant’s complete response is at 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a thorough
review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are
not persuaded that her assertions, in and by themselves, are
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the
Air Force Reserve (AFR). The applicant argues she met the
eligibility requirements for promotion to the rank of master
sergeant prior to the promotion month of 1 September 2004.
However, based on the evidence presented, we do not find an
adequate basis to conclude the applicant was eligible for the unit
vacancy promotion based on AFI 36-2502, Table 4.2. The applicant,
a technical sergeant (TSgt), and a senior master sergeant (SMSgt)
were occupying the same position as of 1 September 2004. According
to the AFR, the SMSgt retired during the month of October 2004,
which caused the applicant to be the sole occupant of the position
and therefore eligible for vacancy promotion as of 1 November 2004.
Additionally, the evidence provided reflects the applicant was
recommended for promotion by her major command for the promotion
cycle, effective 1 November 2004. Consequently, we agree with the
opinion and recommendation of the AFR office of primary
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of
having suffered either an error or injustice. In the absence of
persuasive 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-2004-03518 in Executive Session on 19 January 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Panel Chair
Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Oct 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 30 Nov 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Dec 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Dec 04, w/atchs.
FREDERICK R. BEAMAN III
Panel Chair
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation, and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, paragraph 2.7.2.2 states: “The position must be authorized at a higher grade than the nominee’s current grade.” A further requirement is for the applicant’s nomination package to arrive at HQ ARPC/DPBA 45 days prior to the convening of the selection board (AFI 36-2406). MILMOD, or previously the Personnel Data System...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02883
In support of his response, applicant provided a personal statement; a letter from his wing commander, and letter of certification from the military personnel flight. The attached AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), prepared for the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy (PV) Promotion Selection Board, was accepted for file on 21 April 2004. c. It is further recommended that his record, to include the attached AF Form 709,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02489
It is possible for an officer to be eligible to be assigned to a higher graded position, but a position does not exist. The applicant is not and was not, at the time of the selection board, eligible for promotion consideration. Before the board, during the board and now after public release of the board results, the applicant does not occupy a valid higher graded position.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00701
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00701 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a special selection board (SSB) for the FY04 Line and Health Professions Lt Colonel Position Vacancy (PV) Selection Board with her Officer Performance Report (OPR)...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02656
___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the attached AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), prepared for the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy (PV) Promotion Selection Board, was accepted for file on 21 April 2004. It is further recommended that his record, to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00025
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00025 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be considered for promotion by a Special Board (SB) for the Calendar Year 2012 (CY12) Air Force Reserve Major Position Vacancy (PV) Promotion Selection Board. HQ ARPC contacted the individual noted as "counsel" on the application, explained...
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her senior raters were never contacted to prepare Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the SRBs; she was never provided an opportunity to review her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the FY97 SRB; and, the OSB for the FY98 SRB was incomplete. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s states that...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03190
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommends denial and states consideration for the Major PV Selection Board is based on the receipt of the AF Form 709. The applicant’s senior rater, the sole nomination authority for the PV Selection Board, has not submitted documentation to support either an original nomination, or express support for the appeal request. The original packet was completed and submitted to the MPF on time.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00566
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00566 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 Aug 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the Reserve grade of captain or major. He was in the Air Force Reserve until 29 Sep 55 as a pilot with no promotion in rank. Complete copies of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03598
By authority of that order, he served in the grade of colonel until he was told he had to revert to the rank of lieutenant colonel due to overgrade considerations but would be retired at the grade of 0-6 since that was the highest grade held. He was promoted to the grade of colonel twice, and again asks that his records reflect he retired as a colonel. In April 1993, the Air Reserve Personnel Center Promotion Eligibility Branch received a letter dated 15 March 1993 signed by the applicant...