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
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-2004-03515
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
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
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...
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
We note the letters of support from the applicants supervisor and commander indicating the applicants 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 applicants chain of command, and the actual promotion recommendation form, we believe the earliest reasonable date to correct the applicants DOR would be the date the acting commander signed the promotion...