Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03620
Original file (BC-2004-03620.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03620
            INDEX CODE:

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given credit for time he served as a staff sergeant (SSgt)  with
the US Navy.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  has  provided  copies  of  DD
Forms 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge  from  Active  Duty,  a
promotion letter, and his DD Form 4, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document,
reflecting enlistment in the Army National Guard (ARNG)  and  the  Air
National Guard (ANG).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant, currently a  member  of  the  Florida  Air  National  Guard
(FLANG) began his military career on 27 August 1992 with the US  Navy.
While in the Navy, he was promoted to E-5 (staff sergeant) on 16  June
1988.  He left the Navy and enlisted in the  Army  National  Guard  in
October 1993 in the lower grade of E-4.  On 19 March 1998, he enlisted
in the FLANG in the grade of E-4 (senior airman).  He was promoted  to
staff sergeant (SSgt) with a date of rank (DOR) of 22 March 2004.   He
has 18 years, 1 month, and 19 days of satisfactory service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ANG/DPFOC  recommends  denial.   DPFOC  cites   Air   National   Guard
Instruction (ANGI) 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, wherein it is  stated
“The DOR of airmen previously demoted  as  a  result  of  a  voluntary
change of assignment will be adjusted upon promotion  to  give  credit
for previous time satisfactorily served in that grade.”   DPFOC  notes
this DOR adjustment applies only to  voluntary  change  of  assignment
while assigned to the ANG and therefore  is  not  applicable  in  this
case.

DPFOC’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

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 36-2502 is specific in its limitation of DOR adjustment to
Air National Guard airmen voluntarily changing assignments within  the
Air National Guard.  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-
2004-03620  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 26 Oct 04, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 28 Jul 05, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03625

    Original file (BC-2004-03625.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (bc-2005-01005.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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-2004-03515

    Original file (BC-2004-03515.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He enlisted in the Florida Air National Guard (FLANG) while a senior in high school. 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. DPFOC’s...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00997

    Original file (BC-2002-00997.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He returned to training on 7 September 2000, completed the training on 24 January 2001 and was promoted to SrA on 10 February 2001. Further, DPPI notes that the applicant refers to AFI 36-2502, Airmen Promotion, to validate his request for DOR change. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01807

    Original file (BC-2005-01807.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01807 INDEX CODE: 131.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 DEC 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) to master sergeant be changed from 5 January 2005 to sometime in October 2004. Therefore, he contends had his promotion recommendation been processed as...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00209

    Original file (BC-2005-00209.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-01398

    Original file (BC-2005-01398.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was serving in the grade of technical sergeant and had served 37 years, 6 months, and 22 days for pay at the time of his transfer to the Retired Reserve. Applicant has provided a different promotion recommendation form signed by a different supervisor (along with the same letter of recommendation by the different supervisor). Applicant’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02552

    Original file (BC-2005-02552.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was told he was eligible for a board hearing of his peers, but that if he would sign the demotion paperwork, he would be demoted with the understanding the Wing Commander could reinstate his grade to MSgt at any time. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In regards to the applicant’s claim he would have requested a board hearing had he known his DOR would have changed, DPFOC contends ANGI 36-2503 does not offer the opportunity for those demoted to appear before a board. The office responsible...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 9800833

    Original file (9800833.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00833 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant, Air National Guard, be changed from 1 Sep 96 to 1 May 83, which would allow him to be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant effective 15 Nov 97. However, when he...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00293

    Original file (BC 2013 00293.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    We note the letters of support from the applicant’s supervisor and commander indicating the applicant’s promotion was unreasonably delayed due to numerous administrative errors and that his DOR should be corrected to 2 April 2011. Taking into consideration the letters of support from the applicant’s chain of command, and the actual promotion recommendation form, we believe the earliest reasonable date to correct the applicant’s DOR would be the date the acting commander signed the promotion...