RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03625
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of rank (DOR) to the grade of staff sergeant be changed from
28 October 1995 to 16 April 1994.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His DOR to staff sergeant (SSgt) while in the Navy was 16 April 1994.
He enlisted with the Oregon Air National Guard (ORANG) on 28 October
1995. Upon his enlistment with the ORANG, he was assigned a new DOR
to SSgt of 28 October 1995. He contends his DOR should have remained
16 April 1994.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a copy of his
Navy promotion certificate.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant, a current member of the Florida Air National Guard (FLANG),
began his military career with the US Navy on 29 December 1988. He
left the Navy Reserve (USNR) and enlisted in the ORANG on 28 October
1995 as a SSgt. His DOR to SSgt was changed to his enlistment date.
He served with the ORANG until he transferred to the Florida ANG
(FLANG) on 23 February 2001. He has over 15 years of satisfactory
service and is serving in the grade of SSgt.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. DPFOC states while current enlistment
instructions allow members to enlist with their current DOR intact,
instructions at the time of his enlistment with the ORANG required the
enlistee’s DOR be changed to the date of the enlistment unless the
enlistee transferred to the ANG via a direct conversion with a 3 skill
level in the Air Force Specialty (AFS) he transferred into. DPFOC
contends there is no evidence the applicant received a direct
conversion when he enlisted in the ORANG.
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. Therefore, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2004-03625 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 Oct 04, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 27 Jul 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
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-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 | 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 | 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 | 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03654
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 (ANG) office of primary responsibility that ANG Instructions are clear on the establishment of DOR and subsequent requests for adjustments to such. The applicant had in excess of a two-year break in service from the Air Force before enlisting into the ANG establishing his DOR to be the date of his enlistment into the ANG. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03451
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03451 INDEX CODE: 102.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The 14 months time in grade as an E-4 that he accrued in the Army be applied towards his date of rank (DOR) in the Air National Guard (ANG). He enlisted as an Airman First Class (A1C/E-3) with a date of rank of 2 February 2001 and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00270
He has 22 years of satisfactory service towards a Reserve retirement. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While he is aware of the Air Force policy of including periods of inactive duty in service calculations, he feels the application of this policy in his unusual case is unfair, as it will force him to retire prior to truly serving his full complement of 28 years and prevent him from competing for promotion. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-00305
On 27 November 2001, his commander notified him he was recommending his AGR tour be curtailed and that he be involuntarily discharged from the FLANG for misconduct, with a service characterization of general, under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC). The IG recommended no further investigation into allegations of reprisal. On 27 October 2004, letter of the IG’s findings notified the applicant.