RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01398
INDEX CODE: 131.04
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His record be changed to show he was promoted to the Reserve grade of
master sergeant (MSgt) prior to his medical retirement.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was told he would be promoted to MSgt prior to his separation.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of workers
compensation paperwork, paperwork regarding carrying over his accrued
annual leave, physical profile reports, an earlier congressional
request, pertinent parts of his medical record, copies of his DD Form
214’s, Report of Transfer or Discharge, his NGB Form 22, Report of
Separation and Record of Service, and a recommendation from his
immediate supervisor to promote the applicant to MSgt.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Navy on 13 November 1959. He joined the Air
National Guard on 17 September 1972. On 27 June 1986, he was injured
while performing duty in his military technician position. He
underwent back surgery on 24 September 1986. On 23 January 1987, an
Air Force Form 422, Physical Profile Serial Report, was accomplished
wherein the applicant was allowed to attend Unit Training Assemblies
(UTA’s) and work in a limited status. The AF Form 422 indicates the
applicant was undergoing a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) that was
pending final disposition by HQ ANG/SG. On 27 May 1987, he was
involuntarily separated and transferred to the Retired Reserve,
eligible for Reserve retired pay at age 60. He was serving in the
grade of technical sergeant and had served 37 years, 6 months, and 22
days for pay at the time of his transfer to the Retired Reserve. He
began receiving retired pay effective 31 October 2002.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. DPFOC notes the applicant did provide a
copy of recommendation for promotion; however, the recommendation,
while signed by his supervisor, was not signed by his commander. In
accordance with Air National Guard Instruction (AMGI) 36-2502,
Promotion of Airmen, “…commanders will forward…recommendation through
their servicing Military Personnel Flights (MPF’s) to the promotion
authority.” As there is no command endorsement of the promotion
request there are no violations of AFI 36-2502 and therefore no error
or injustice.
DPFOC’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states he is upset with the ANG advisory’s comment that his
promotion recommendation was not signed by his commander. Applicant
has provided a different promotion recommendation form signed by a
different supervisor (along with the same letter of recommendation by
the different supervisor). The new recommendation is signed by his
unit commander as well as his first sergeant but not signed by his
Wing/Group commander.
Applicant’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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. The promotion recommendation included in the
original application was not signed by his commander and therefore was
apparently not acted on prior to his retirement. The applicant, in
response to the OPR’s mention of the lack of a command signature,
provided a second promotion recommendation that was also incomplete.
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-
2005-01398 in Executive Session on 28 March 2006, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Apr 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 21 Feb 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Feb 06, w/atchs.
JAY H. JORDAN
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00075
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00075 INDEX CODE: 108.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 3 July 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Special Form 502, Narrative Summary (Clinical Resume), signed on 9 April 2003 be corrected to reflect he did inform military authorities of an injury he received while on temporary duty...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03166
Her service record shows how much she enjoyed her military career and how well she and her military teammates worked together. DPFOC contends the characterization of service she has applied for does not exist. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
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 | 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 | 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-2005-02132
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was on terminal leave at the time the Captain’s Promotion Board met and was not able to meet the Board. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02549
He appealed and a deal was struck between himself, the SJA and the Wing Commander (WG/CC) that he would meet the next scheduled promotion board in March 2002 and, if selected, and if he made progress in the weight management program, his DOR could be changed to reflect an earlier DOR. Regarding the referral OPR and other issues besides his request to backdate his DOR he notes he qualifies for the requested remedies from the AFBCMR without actually appealing the OPR. ...
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 | CY2006 | BC-2005-01536
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Base on available records, the applicant, was an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) enlisted member with 17 years of satisfactory federal service. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/DPM reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating, in part, applicant states he completed all...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00365
He states that at the time he was considered for promotion to MSgt, he had more than 12 months left until retirement. Counsel opines that based on the stipulations in AFI 36-2502 and AFRC 36-2102, the Air Force could have, and should have, granted the applicant the promotion to master sergeant (MSgt). The waiver was denied because the applicant would have only been able to perform duty as a MSgt for 10 months before reaching his mandatory retirement at High Year of Tenure Date of 20 Mar 07.