RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01005
INDEX CODE: 131.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His original date of rank (DOR) to commander (05) in the Navy replace
the DOR he established when he transferred to the Florida Air National
Guard (FLANG).
_________________________________________________________________
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. He contends his DOR to Navy commander was 1 June 2002. He
states he is currently a lieutenant colonel (05) on active duty with
the FLANG with no break in service. His current DOR to 05 is
21 January 2004. He has been serving in a Colonel (06) position with
the FLANG since July 2004 and notes that if his DOR is changed to
reflect the earlier Navy DOR, he would be eligible for 06
consideration this summer (2005).
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his
FLANG active duty order, his FLANG promotion order from major to
lieutenant colonel, the Navy 05 line selection list, and his Navy DD
Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant began his military career on 22 June 1986. In May 2001, he
was selected by the Navy for promotion to commander (05). He served
with the Navy until 30 April 2002 when he resigned in order to join
the FLANG in an Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) position. At the time of
his resignation, he had served 15 years, 10 months, and 8 days and he
resigned in the grade of lieutenant commander (04), as he had not yet
been promoted to 05. He accepted an appointment with the FLANG on 1
May 2002 as a major (04).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. 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 service components must be appointed in the
grade held at the time of appointment. As he was a Navy major when he
was appointed, he was appointed in the FLANG in the grade of major.
Further, in accordance with 10 United States Code (U.S.C) Section
14317, the ANG is only authorized to recognize promotions of officers
on promotion lists if they are in the same service component, which in
this case would be, the United States Air Force.
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 9
September 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. Title 10, U.S.C., Section
14317 states the ANG only has the authority to recognize promotions of
officers on an Active Duty List from the US Air Force. 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-
2005-01005 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 21 Mar 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 1 Sep 05.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 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-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-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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02123
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: While on active duty with the Regular Air Force, he was promoted to captain and given a promotion line number based on 17 August 1992. Further, if his request to change his DOR was ultimately to entitle him to meet the FY07 ANG mandatory promotion board, then his current DOR to major of 6 February 2000 meets the time in grade requirements and qualifies him to meet the FY07 ANG mandatory board. ...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-02550
He contends the delay in his promotion to major was due to an administrative oversight, as he should have been promoted to major at the minimum Time In Grade (TIG) of three years instead of the five years he actually served as a captain. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00007
Had he met the UV Board he would have been promoted to major effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 15 March 2002. c. His date of rank to captain was 21 September 1988 and not 24 June 1995 as noted in his military record. DPFOC state’s as they are unable to confirm that his promotion date should be changed from 1 October 2002 to 15 March 2002, they conclude the proper procedures were followed in his submission for mandatory (ROPMA) promotion. ...
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 | 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...