Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00596
Original file (BC-2005-00596.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00596
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  No


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  16 Aug 06


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted supplemental promotion consideration  to  the  grade  of
chief master sergeant (CMSgt) for cycle 02E9.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The citation for the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), Fifth  Oak  Leaf
Cluster (5OLC), awarded to him for the period 2 Mar 00 to  28  Jun  02
was not included in his Senior NCO  (SNCO)  Selection  Folder  and  no
discrepancy report was included to indicate the citation was missing.

The SNCO Evaluation Brief prepared on  him  and  viewed  by  the  02E9
Central Evaluation Board listed an incorrect unit of assignment.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a  copy  of  the  MSM
(5OLC) citation and a copy of his entire SNCO selection folder.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served on active duty  from  7  Apr  75  to  30  Apr  03
achieving the grade of senior  master  sergeant  (SMSgt)  (E-8).   The
applicant was considered for promotion to CMSgt for  the  fourth  time
during cycle 02E9.  His total score during the board was 616.00 with a
score of 652.00 needed for promotion in his AFSC.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the  applicant’s  request.   AFI  36-
2502, 6 Aug 02, Table 2.5, lists the  reasons  for  SNCO  Supplemental
Promotion Board Consideration.  The unit of assignment is not  one  of
the listed items.  Several evaluation board members  were  queried  to
determine  what  they  believed  were  valid  reasons   to   authorize
supplemental   promotion   consideration   and    based    on    their
recommendations the reasons outlined in AFI 36-2502, Airman  Promotion
Program, Table 2.5, were developed.

Regarding decorations, Table 2.5, Rule  4,  states  that  supplemental
promotion consideration is not authorized if the citation or order was
filed or if the decoration was listed on the brief used by the  board.
The applicant’s MSM (5OLC) was updated on the  SNCO  Evaluation  Brief
reviewed by the 02E9 board.

The 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 6
May 05 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has
not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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 Force
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.

_______________________________________________________________

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 Docket  Number  BC-2005-
00596 in Executive Session on 15 June 2005, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Martha A. Maust, Member
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Feb 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 26 Apr 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01102

    Original file (BC-2003-01102.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFI 36-2502, Table 2.5 states, that supplemental consideration is not authorized if the citation or order was filed or if the decoration was listed on the brief used by the board, was developed through consultation with evaluation board members who determined that either update of the decoration or actual citation filed in the SNCO selection folder was sufficient for a thorough evaluation of the record. A review of the applicant’s selection folder reflects that the MSM (1OLC) was filed in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03331

    Original file (BC-2005-03331.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03331 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 30 June 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) for promotion cycles 03E8 and 04E8. DPPPWB...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000168

    Original file (0000168.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 February 2000, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days. It appears that the citation for his MSM, 1OLC was not in his Senior NCO Selection Folder when reviewed by the Evaluation Board. However, AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.5, Rule 4,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-00215

    Original file (BC-2003-00215.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00215 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Board staff was advised by AFPC/DPPPWB they were unable to comply with the Board’s directive to provide supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt). ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01619

    Original file (BC-2007-01619.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01619 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 November 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive supplemental promotion consideration for the 07E8 cycle to senior master sergeant (E-8), with the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) 3rd Oak Leaf Cluster (3OLC) citation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03980

    Original file (BC-2003-03980.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The DPPPWB 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 13 Feb 04, for review and comment within 30 days. Therefore, in the absence of clear-cut evidence that the applicant's record would have been scored sufficiently high to warrant his selection for promotion by the board in question, favorable action on his request for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00646

    Original file (BC-2004-00646.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, the decoration was not updated in the system at the time initial selects were run as evidenced by the score notice dated 17 Mar 81. Also, the MSM (1OLC) was not considered by the promotion board. We noted applicant’s contention that the MSM, 1OLC, was not considered by the promotion board; however, since this award did not close out until 30 Jun 82, and was not awarded until 22 Jul 82, it did not meet the eligibility criteria for cycle 82S9.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01305

    Original file (BC-2003-01305.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant was the number one non-select of the seven individuals considered for promotion in his AFSC. There were seven eligibles in the 1A4X0 AFSC at the time selects were run on 29 October 2002, resulting in one promotion quota. The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He feels the Air Force advisory has not addressed the issue of accountability to written Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02650

    Original file (BC-2005-02650.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    He retired from the Air Force on 31 Jul 03. DPPP states he was time-in-grade eligible for senior rater endorsement based on the new DOR at the time of the 30 Sep 01 report. In this respect, we note that based on the applicant’s original 1 Jun 01 date of rank (DOR) to the grade of senior master sergeant, he was ineligible for promotion consideration to the grade of chief master sergeant prior to his 31 Jul 03 retirement.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04076

    Original file (BC-2010-04076.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She was notified by the Base Records Office that the basic AFAM was missing from her personnel records and she needed to provide a copy or her records would be changed to reflect the assumed discrepancy. The complete DPSOE 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 1 Apr 11, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). ...