RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01570
INDEX CODE: 112.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 14 SEPTEMBER 2006
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The date of rank and effective date of his promotion to Master Sergeant
(E-7) be changed from 1 May 2005 to 1 March 2005.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to an administrative oversight there was a delay in publication of
promotion orders to the grade of E-7. His commander’s recommended
effective date of promotion of 1 March 2005 did not reach HQ ARPC due to
an e-mail communication error. His current promotion orders reflect an
effective date of 1 May 2005, which has created a two month delay in pay
entitlements. He has not received a copy of his promotion order.
In support of the application, the applicant submits copies of e-mail
communications between his Commander and his Base Information Management
Assistance Administrator.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s military personnel records were not provided. The
Military Personnel Database (MilPDS) indicates the applicant is a member
of the Air Force Reserve currently serving in the grade of Master
Sergeant (MSgt) (E-7) with a date of rank of 1 May 2005. He is assigned
as an Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) Reservist performing duties
as a Flight Chief. MilPDS indicates the applicant has 18 years of
satisfactory service as of 18 February 2005.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ ARPC/DPB recommends denial. DPB states enlisted promotion requires
specific time-in-grade, time-in-service, skill-level in current job,
completion of specific professional military education, satisfactory
participation, a recommendation for promotion from their supervisor and
endorsement by the Promotion Authority for the promotion (AFI 36-2502,
Chapter 4). DPB explains the applicant’s name did not appear on the HQ
AETC promotion list for promotions effective 1 March 2005. DPB affirms
this means the applicant was not recommended by his supervisor nor
endorsed for promotion by the Promotion Authority. The applicant was
subsequently recommended and promoted to the grade of MSgt effective 1
May 2005. DPB concludes there is nothing in the applicant’s
documentation from either his supervisor or the Promotion Authority to
indicate he was eligible, qualified, or recommended for promotion
effective 1 March 2005 and his reason of “administratrive oversight” is
not supported by his supervisor or the Promotion Authority.
DPB’s evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for
review and comment on 20 May 2005. As of this date, this office has
received no response (Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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 and adopt their
rationale as the basis for the 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-
01570 in Executive Session on 10 January 2006, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 May 05 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 16 May 05 w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 May 05.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01303
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of her selection to major in Apr 01, her active duty supervisor was not informed by the 12 MSS/DPMPEP (officer promotions) or by the AFPC/CCR (Reserve Advisor) that he could accelerate her promotion in accordance with AFI 36-2504, paragraph 6.5. The also noted the applicant’s statement she was notified of promotion by her supervisor on 17 Apr 01. According to ARPC/DPB, information...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01693
For airmen who meet eligibility requirements, the immediate supervisor recommends promotion on AF Form 224, Recommendation and Authorization for Promotion of Airman as Reserve of the Air Force. According to the 7 Apr 04 report, MSgt C was the rater and Chief A was the additional rater. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He should have received an initial and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03518
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reiterated her original contentions that her records should be corrected to reflect her promotion to master sergeant effective as of 1 September 2004. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that her assertions, in and by themselves, are sufficiently persuasive...
As she had been filling a lieutenant colonel position, she would have been eligible to be promoted to the grade of major, effective with the validation of her position by the Air Force, via an accelerated promotion. She was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of major, with a date of rank of 1 October 2001 (Exhibit B). Based on these circumstances and the fact that she had been filling a lieutenant colonel’s position, her senior rater recommended her for an accelerated...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03598
By authority of that order, he served in the grade of colonel until he was told he had to revert to the rank of lieutenant colonel due to overgrade considerations but would be retired at the grade of 0-6 since that was the highest grade held. He was promoted to the grade of colonel twice, and again asks that his records reflect he retired as a colonel. In April 1993, the Air Reserve Personnel Center Promotion Eligibility Branch received a letter dated 15 March 1993 signed by the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00284
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00284 INDEX CODE: 100.05 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 Aug 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered by the Calendar Year 2005 (CY05) Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) Continuation Board with a Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) of 14N4 (Intelligence) rather than...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01900
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The report does not reflect his efforts or accomplishments during the rating period. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPB recommends...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | bc-2005-01550
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01550 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 SEPTEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears he is requesting consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the FY05 United States Air Force Reserve...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03829
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03829 INDEX CODE: 137.04 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Reserve Component Survivor Benefits Plan (RCSBP) election be changed from Option “A” (Decline to make an election until age 60) to Option “C” (Immediate Annuity). He agreed and elected Option “A.”...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00088
On 1 April 2004, the AFBCMR considered and, by a majority vote, recommended approval of applicant's request for removal of the OPR, closing 10 February 2002, LOCs, LOA, UIF, and all references thereto, from his records and SSB consideration, with his corrected record. As to the Board’s previous decision, DPB indicates that HQ ARPC complied (all available references to the LOC, LOA, UIF and the OPR were removed from the applicant’s record), and awarded SSB in lieu of the FY03 and FY04 Line...