RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00209
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her date of rank (DOR) to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) be
changed from 22 October 2004 to 1 July 2004.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She met a selection board on 1 July 2004 and due to circumstances
beyond her control the notification of her selection for the position
was not made official until 22 October 2004. In accordance with Title
10 Air National Guard (ANG) Statutory guidelines (sic) her DOR should
be changed to the date she was selected.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement, a letter of support, a copy of the selection board letter,
pertinent email trails,
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, a current Title 10 Statutory tour member of the Florida
Air National Guard (FLANG), applied for a position with the 601st
Combat Operations Squadron. At the time of her application she was a
technical sergeant (TSgt). The authorized grade of the position she
applied for was master sergeant (MSgt). 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.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. DPFOC states that selection for a
position with a higher authorized grade than the selectee held at her
selection does not mean she would be automatically submitted for
promotion to the higher grade. She must still be recommended for
promotion through the appropriate channels. DPFOC contends she was
promoted when the recommendation was received.
DPFOC’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
28 October 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. She was selected for a
position that was one grade higher than she possessed when she was
selected; however, selection to the higher grade position does not
mean she is automatically submitted for promotion consideration to the
higher grade. She was promoted to MSgt when her recommendation for
promotion was submitted through channels and allowed to run the course
of the promotion system. 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-
2005-00209 in Executive Session on 1 December 2005, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 Dec 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 21 Oct 05.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 05.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
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-2004-03580
Therefore, DPFOC specifically recommends denial of his request to reenlist, to be restored to the grade of TSgt, consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt), and his request for a discharge certificate. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated assertion of command retribution denying him reenlistment, in and by itself, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03927
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03927 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Item 18, Pay Date, located on his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, be changed from 760414 to 740103 and that Item 26, Reenlistment Eligibility, be changed from “Ineligible” to Retired Ready...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00702
Documentation of this interview will serve as a record of the member's intent to reenlist at ETS as well as the unit commander's selection for reenlistment. DPFOC notes the commander did not recommend the applicant for reenlistment. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03281
As the OPR’s were not completed in accordance with governing Instructions and were not timely, she was forced to meet a mandatory promotion board instead of qualifying for a Position Vacancy (PV) promotion to major. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the ANG advisory cites a paragraph from ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2504, Federal Recognition Of Promotion In The Air National Guard And As A Reserve Of...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02322
She would like the Board to redress this situation and render a final decision that will allow for her immediate promotion to the rank of Lt Col, with an effective date of 9 September 2001, the date she was first eligible for promotion and assigned to an authorized Lt Col position. Since that date, she has not been selected for positions requiring the grade of Lt Col. ANG officers selected for promotion to Lt Col who are in a full-time Air Guard Reserve/Statutory Tour position, and not...
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 | 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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-01716
INDEX CODE: 131.05 BC-2005-01716 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...