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.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Applicant contends it is HQ Texas Air National Guard (TXANG) policy
that all Top Three traditional and technician promotions would be
processed on a weekly basis. The policy further states that complete
requests must be received by the close of business each Tuesday. He
contends he was selected for immediate promotion on 25 September 2004
but his promotion package was not processed in accordance with TXANG
policy. Therefore, he contends had his promotion recommendation been
processed as expeditiously as it should have been, his DOR would have
been some time in October 2004.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his
promotion letter, a HQTXANG Policy letter, and special order ANG-A
46TX.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, a current member of the Texas Air National Guard
(TXANG), began his military career on 1 October 1980. On 25
September 2004, the applicant was recommended for promotion to MSgt by
the TXANG Master Sergeant Selection Board. He was promoted to the
grade of master sergeant with an effective and date of rank (DOR) of 5
January 2005.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. DPFOC contends they have no authority to
make an opinion on a State’s policy unless that policy violates an ANG
Instruction (ANGI). DPFOC contends no violation of ANGI 36-2502,
Promotion of Airmen, appears to have taken place.
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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After a careful review of all the
documentation evidence present, we are of the opinion had the
applicant’s promotion package been processed in accordance with
current HQ Texas ANG Policy, he would have been promoted earlier than
5 January 2005. Lack of administrative support, while a plausible
reason for not processing the applicant’s promotion package in a
timely manner in line with State policy, should not work to the
detriment of the applicant. Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s
records be corrected as indicated below.
______________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was promoted to the
Reserve grade of master sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of
28 September 2004 rather than 5 January 2005.
______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application 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
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Jun 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 13 Oct 05.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 28 Oct 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Nov 05.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC
[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR
1535 Command Drive
EE Wing, 3rd Floor
Andrews AFB MD 20762-7002
Your application to the Air Force Board for Correction of
Military Records, AFBCMR BC-2005-01807, has been finalized.
The Board determined that the military records should be
corrected as set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the
Chief of Staff, United States Air Force. The office responsible for
making the correction will inform you when your records have been
changed.
After correction, the records will be reviewed to determine if
you are entitled to any monetary benefits as a result of the
correction of records. This determination is made by the Defense
Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS-DE), Denver, Colorado, and
involves the assembly and careful checking of finance records. It may
also be necessary for the DFAS-DE to communicate directly with you to
obtain additional information to ensure the proper settlement of your
claim. Because of the number and complexity of claims workload, you
should expect some delay. We assure you, however, that every effort
will be made to conclude this matter at the earliest practical date.
Sincerely
RALPH J. PRETE
Chief Examiner
Air Force Board for Correction
of Military Records
Attachment:
Record of Board Proceedings
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC
[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR BC-2005-01807
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to, be corrected to show that he was promoted to the
Reserve grade of master sergeant, effective and with a date of rank of
28 September 2004, rather than 5 January 2005.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
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-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-2005-03053
The State HQ based their denial of his promotion on ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2502, wherein it is stated members on 4-P (permanent) medical status are not eligible for promotion consideration. A1POF contends he was denied promotion on 6 February 2004 by the TXANG as he was ineligible in accordance with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members. ...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2004-02189
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02189 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility be changed from “Ineligible” to “Eligible.” _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He moved to Texas for employment reasons and concurrently transferred from...
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-2004-03580
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-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 | 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 | CY2004 | BC-2003-01881
He was not able to submit an appeal under these time constraints, as the supporting documentation, frequently requested by his counsel, did not arrive until 28 February 2003, only 11 days prior to his separation. On 8 September 2001 however, a request from his commander that his tour be extended for 120 days due to stop-loss, through 26 January 2002, was approved. On 27 February 2003, counsel requested that the State AG extend the applicant’s tour by 90 days in accordance with ANGI-36-101,...