RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02132
INDEX CODE: 131.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of rank (DOR) to the reserve grade of captain be changed to
17 February 2005 rather than 17 March 2005.
_________________________________________________________________
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. He met Time in Grade (TIG)
requirements on 17 February 2005 and feels his DOR should be
backdated, as he was not able to meet the earlier Board. Further, his
promotion should be backdated to the earlier date as promotions to
captain are now mandatory when candidates reach two years TIG as a
first lieutenant.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted on 28 March 1997. In February 2001, the Missouri
Air National Guard (MOANG) commissioned him and he went on to complete
airlift navigator training in August 2002. He has been progressively
promoted to the Reserve grade of captain with an effective and DOR of
17 March 2005. He is currently serving in the MOANG and has over
eight years of satisfactory service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. DPFOC notes the applicant’s charge that
he was not promoted to captain at the earlier date because he could
not appear at the promotion Board is without merit. DPFOC states his
commander could have waived the requirement to appear if he were
inclined to do so. Unit Vacancy (UV) promotions are controlled by the
commander and reaching minimum TIG requirements do not create an
entitlement to promotion. He was promoted at the commander’s
discretion one month after meeting the minimum TIG requirement.
Regarding his contention he should have been promoted earlier due to
promotions to captain being mandatory at the two year TIG point, DPFOC
notes the mandatory promotion to captain at the two year TIG point did
not take effect until 1 July 2005, after he had already been promoted.
DPFOC’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
17 February 2006 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this
date, this office has received no response.
_________________________________________________________________
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. Notwithstanding the fact his commander could
have, but did not, waive his appearance at the promotion board, it is
our opinion that merely attaining the minimum TIG for promotion to the
next higher grade does not create an entitlement to such. Regarding,
his contention he should have been promoted earlier due to promotions
to captain being mandatory at the two-year TIG point, we note this
policy was not implemented until four months after he had been
promoted. 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-
2005-02132 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 1 Apr 05.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 6 Feb 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 February 2006.
JAY H. JORDAN
Panel Chair
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-2005-02123
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2005-00007
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-2005-03281
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-2005-00639
However, his name had already appeared on the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act (ROPMA) Mandatory Promotion List prior to him meeting the time in grade (TIG) requirement for a Unit Vacancy (UV) promotion. In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided promotion orders to first lieutenant and captain, and the fiscal year 2004 (FY04) Reserve of the Air Force Line and Nonline Captain Promotion Selection Boards results. He was commissioned in the Louisiana ANG (LAANG) on 20 August...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01776
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01776 INDEX CODE: 131.04, 131.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be paid as a major retroactively to his date of rank (DOR) rather than his promotion effective date (PED). Based on input from the ANG Subject Matter Expert (SME), A1P0F states the applicant’s promotion package was not...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01398
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. Applicant has provided a different promotion recommendation form signed by a different supervisor (along with the same letter of recommendation by the different supervisor). Applicant’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01859
INDEX CODE: 131.05 BC-2005-01859 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01983
Members of the Board, Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Mr. Albert C. Ellett, and Mr. Jay H. Jordan, considered this application on 21 July 2005. MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, ANG/DPFOC, dtd 5 Jul 05, w/atch BC-2005-01983 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of...