ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03053
INDEX CODE: 121.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show he was promoted to the Reserve grade of
senior master sergeant (SMSgt) effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 6
February 2004.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On 16 May 2006, the applicant's original request was considered and denied
by the Board. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding
the applicant’s request, and, the rationale of the earlier decision by the
Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit E.
On 29 June 2006, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration
wherein he presented new evidence in support of his request. The
applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing this application and the evidence provided in support
of his appeal, we remain unpersuaded the applicant should be promoted. His
argument that the regulation used to disability retire him did not apply to
him is true; however disability retirement and promotion are two different
subjects and as such are governed by two different instructions. The fact
the instructions may complement each other during situations that call for
such collaboration does not, in and of itself, lend credence to the
applicant’s contentions. Promotions are based not generally on past
performance but on the applicant’s future potential to serve in the higher
grade. In this case, the ANGI 36-2502 addresses why he was not promoted to
SMSgt. The applicant was placed on a P4T physical profile, was deemed not
qualified for worldwide duty, and was being processed for physical
disqualification. Therefore he was not eligible for promotion to the next
higher grade. Accordingly, the applicant’s request is not favorably
considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; 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 this application in Executive
Session on 13 November 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit E. Record of Proceedings, dated 31 May 2006,
with exhibits A through D.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s Letter, 12 Oct 05, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03053
The State HQ based their denial of his promotion on ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2502, wherein it is stated members on 4-P (permanent) medical status are not eligible for promotion consideration. A1POF contends he was denied promotion on 6 February 2004 by the TXANG as he was ineligible in accordance with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03516
In support of the appeal, applicant provided a personal statement, dated 30 September 2006, copies of a Chronology prepared by the 482 FW/IG, dated 5 August 2006, a HYTD Notification Memorandum from the 482 MSG/DPMSA, dated 9 January 2004, an Enlistment/Reenlistment Document (DD Form 4), dated 2 October 2004, a Report on Individual Person (RIP), dated 20 April 2005, an undated memorandum acknowledging HYT extension, an e-mail trail from May- July 2005 advising 482 MSG/CES/CC of HYT...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02670
However, a Letter of Evaluation (LOE) does not contain ratings. Although the applicant worked in different sections, his rater remained TSgt C__ and there was no proof provided to show TSgt C__ was not able to provide a fair assessment on the individual. AFPC/DPPPE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and asks the Board to please accept...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01512
On 26 May 2005, the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Counsel (SAFPC) determined the applicant will be advanced to the grade of CMSgt on the retired list when his active service plus his service on the retired list totals 30 years (17 December 2011). It appears that at the time of his retirement he was not considered for a highest grade determination. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01688
The complete DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force Evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 14 Jul 06 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that she was...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-04054A
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWM states by direction of the Air Force Board of Correction for Military Records (AFBCMR) the applicant was supplementally considered for promotion to SMSgt by the 01E8 promotion board. They further state for the applicant to assume the grade of SMSgt with an effective date of 1 September 2001, his record would need to be corrected to reflect he did not retire until 1 September 2003, after...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01075
AFI 36-2606 states that the appeal authority for individuals like the applicant with more than 20 years of service would be his group commander. Based on HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s advisory (Exhibit E), the group commander’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) contacted the HQ AFPC retirements section to advise that the group commander was going to complete the AF Form 418. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises the applicant was...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02193
Should the Board choose to correct the record per DPSIDEP’s recommendation, they could direct the applicant be supplementally considered for promotion to CMSgt for cycle 06E9 and 07E9 during the next SNCO Supplemental Board (July 2009). DPSOE states that since the applicant had a weighable report (close out date between 1 August 2005 – 31 July 2006) on file at the time the Board met, he was considered, but not selected, for promotion to CMSgt during cycle 06E9. The complete DPSOE...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03866
The applicant believes his Impaired Hearing and Tinnitus were caused by the noise exposure he experienced while performing duties as a senior woodworker. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence that he was awarded the AFCM 3OLC. Nor do we find evidence showing that his records should be corrected to show he was promoted to any grade higher than that currently reflected.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02017
Prior to the larceny, the applicant and SMSgt T__ were in the storage room when the applicant asks SMSgt T__ what was in the box and she said they were gift certificates, which had probably expired. The military judge determined the gift certificates belonged to the Air Force and were not abandoned. He served 21 years, 9 months and 18 days of total active military service.