RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00494
INDEX CODE: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 AUG 2007
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7) for cycle FY03E7.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
A mandatory anthrax vaccination prior to his deployment to Saudi Arabia in
2001 caused him to suffer several medical conditions and subsequently be
diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS).
In support of the appeal, applicant submits copies a personal statement,
four letters of support, his enlisted promotion information, his Enlisted
Performance Reports (EPRs) from the years 2000 through 2004, and excerpts
from his medical records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 December 1984 and entered
active duty. He was progressively promoted to the grade of technical
sergeant.
On 14 November 2005, his commander advised the Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB) that the applicant should be medically retired because he was unable
to meet his duty requirement as a result of his MS. Neurologist
consultation agreed with a diagnosis of MS.
On 15 November 2005, the MEB referred the case to a Physical Evaluation
Board (PEB). On 1 December 2005, an Informal PEB (IPEB) found the
applicant unfit due to being diagnosed as suffering from MS. The IPEB
recommended the applicant be medically retired with a compensable
disability rating of 70%. On 9 December 2005, the applicant agreed with
the IPEB’s findings and recommendation. The Office of the Secretary of the
Air Force, Personnel Council (SAF/PC), subsequently directed the applicant
be permanently retired for physical disability.
The applicant was permanently retired for physical disability with 70 a
percent compensable rating. He had 21 years, 2 months and 29 days of
active service.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that
current Air Force policy does not allow for automatic promotion as the
applicant is requesting. The applicant cannot be automatically promoted
based on the assumption that had he not been suffering from the affects of
MS, he would have scored well enough to be selected for promotion during
cycle 03E7, 04E7 or 05E7. To do so would not be fair or equitable to his
peers. Test scores are an integral part of the promotion process and
comprise approximately 44% of the weighted factors. Without test scores
the Air Force would not be able to apply the basic mechanics of the
promotion process. Test scores are also part of the means by which an
individual’s level of knowledge and potential for promotion is based.
The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 Mar
06, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.
________________________________________________________________
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 it’s rationale as the basis for our 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 Docket Number BC-2006-00494
in Executive Session on 17 May 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Panel Chair
Ms. Debra Walker, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Feb 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Mar 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Mar 06.
MICHAEL J. MAGLIO
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00862
Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. We therefore conclude the fair and right thing to do is to recommend the 4N0X1C members be given supplemental consideration in the CAFSC 4N0X1 for the 05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02591
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPD reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating, in part, applicant was separated from active service on 8 Aug 05 due to a physical disability and permanently disability retired under the provisions of Title 10 USC 1201. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02295
Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. We therefore conclude the fair and right thing to do is to recommend the 4N0X1C members be given supplemental consideration in the CAFSC 4N0X1 for the 05E6/05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01832
The applicant was progressively promoted to the rank of master sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 November 1978. 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: AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request. His commander, did...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00405
In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.1, Rule 2, dated 6 August 2002, a member must possess a PAFSC at the 5-skill level by the respective Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the cycle. They have no way of knowing whether the applicant’s commander would have approved a skill level waiver for cycle 02E5, especially since he had only been on active duty 52 days as of the PECD. He did not possess the skill level required, nor did he receive a skill...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02361
Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. Complete copies of the applicant’s responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised that prior to the start of the promotion cycle, CFMs are advised that if they feel it is appropriate for the suffix and “slick” AFSCs...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02310
Not every IDMT-qualified member was identified, mostly because they were not in an IDMT position. Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. As to whether some individuals were incorrectly promoted because they were “lucky” enough to be identified in the wrong CAFSC, promotion selections are “tentative pending verification by the MPF” (AFI 36-2502) and airmen are not “to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02683
Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. As to whether some individuals were incorrectly promoted because they were “lucky” enough to be identified in the wrong CAFSC, promotion selections are “tentative pending verification by the MPF” (AFI 36-2502) and airmen are not “to assume the grade when data verification discovers missing or erroneous data.” Therefore, if an IDMT serving...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02723
Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. We therefore conclude the fair and right thing to do is to recommend the 4N0X1C members be given supplemental consideration in the CAFSC 4N0X1 for the 05E6/05E7 promotion cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01716
In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement, copy of statement Reason for Appeal of Referral EPR, AF IMT Form 910 Enlisted Performance Report, a Rebuttal to Referral Report Memorandum, a Letter of Appreciation, AF Form IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet, five Letters of Recommendation and excerpts from her military personnel records. On 3 October 2005, an unsigned copy of the referral EPR dated 30 September 2005 was presented to her. After reviewing the...