RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02550
INDEX CODE: 131.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel (05).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His promotion to the Reserve grade of major (04) should have occurred
two years earlier than it did. 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.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his
promotion order to captain and major along with the associated
certificates of Oaths of Office for each appointment.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 11 June 1998, the applicant was commissioned at the Reserve grade
of captain and accepted an appointment with the US Army Reserve (USAR)
in Wyoming. While a member of the USAR, he was promoted to the
Reserve grade of major effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 30
April 2003. On 8 January 2005, he transferred to the Iowa Air
National Guard (IAANG) where he accepted appointment in the grade of
major. He is currently serving with the IAANG.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPFOC recommends denial. DPFOC contends the minimum TIG
requirement from captain to major is four years and the maximum TIG is
seven years. DPFOC contends the earliest he could have been promoted
to major would have been 11 June 2002. DPFOC notes his commander
recommended him for promotion to major on 30 April 2003.
DPFOC notes that reaching minimum TIG requirements does not guarantee
automatic promotion. While TIG is a requirement for promotion, the
ultimate decision to promote belongs to the commander.
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
13 January 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 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 time in grade (TIG) requirement from captain
to major is four years and not three years as he contends. Further,
meeting the TIG requirements of the next higher grade does not
guarantee promotion. The commander makes the ultimate decision of
whether or not a member is promoted at the minimum TIG and the
commander chose otherwise with respect to the applicant. 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-
2005-02550 in Executive Session on 16 February 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
Ms. Donna Jonkoff, Member
Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 18 Oct 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 06.
MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
Panel Chair
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-2005-02123
_________________________________________________________________ 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-2005-02549
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 | CY2005 | bc-2005-01005
_________________________________________________________________ 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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03913
Therefore, he should have been promoted via the Reserve Office Promotion Act (ROPMA) in 1999, his seventh year of time in grade (TIG) as a captain. A1POF states he was, in fact, considered by the fiscal year 2000 (FY00) Air National Guard Major mandatory promotion board and was not selected making him a once-deferred officer. 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...
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-2004-02239
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was forced to leave the Air National Guard, as the Air Force believed he had asthma. In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a statement from his pulmonologist, a copy of a letter awarding him with a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and copies of his DD 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00956
The return trip to the United States was in February 2003 and was an 18- hour flight. In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and copies of medical records, letters of support from attending physicians and witnesses, his LOD and Physical Profile Report, the first and second Report of Investigation (ROI), military medical history documents, deployment reports and associated orders, and pertinent information derived from the Internet dealing with pulmonary...