RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02591
INDEX CODE: 110.00, 131.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: DAV
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 JAN 2008
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be credited with 20 years of active service and that he be
retired in the rank of master sergeant (MSgt).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Given the circumstances of his discharge, having served just seven
months short of 20 years, he believes he should be eligible for all
benefits afforded any member who has served 20 years of active duty
service. Additionally, he should be granted the rank of MSgt for
ID and record purposes.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 26 Mar 86 and was
progressively promoted to the rank of technical sergeant with a
date of rank of 1 Mar 00. He was considered and nonselected for
promotion to MSgt during cycles 02E7 and 03E7.
On 6 Apr 05, the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) found
the applicant unfit for military service and recommended permanent
disability with a rating of 30%. On 8 Apr 05, the applicant
disagreed with the IPEB’s findings and requested a Formal Physical
Evaluation Board (FPEB). On 2 May 05, after consulting with
counsel, applicant waived his earlier election to demand a hearing
by the FPEB and concurred with finding of the IPEB.
On 6 May 05, officials with the Secretary of the Air Force directed
the applicant be retired with a compensable percentage of 30.
Applicant was permanently retired for disability effective
9 Aug 05, with a disability rating of 30%. He completed 19 years,
4 months, and 13 days of active military service.
___________________________________________________________________
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. DPPD
established disability separation and retirement dates in
accordance with (IAW) AFI 36-3212. At no time during the
disability process did the applicant request an extension to his
date of separation.
HQ AFPC/DPPD’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit
C.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial. Applicant was considered and
nonselected for promotion to MSgt during cycles 02E7 and 03E7. He
signed an AF Form 1566 Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) Test
Verification declining to test for cycle 04E7 and 05E7, which is an
ineligibility condition IAW AF36-2502.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
By letter dated 19 Oct 06, applicant requested an extension of 45
days (Exhibit F).
___________________________________________________________________
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. After careful
review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, it
appears the applicant has been credited with all active service
creditable under the governing instructions and laws in effect at
the time of his disability retirement. Disability retirements are
not voluntary. When the disability decision is finalized, the
member is expeditiously separated. There is no opportunity to
choose to stay longer though the member can choose length of
service in lieu of disability retirement, if eligible. In
addition, the applicant declined WAPS testing for cycle 04E7 and
05E7, rendering him ineligible for promotion to the next higher
grade. The personal sacrifice the applicant contributed to his
country is noted and our decision in no way diminishes the high
regard we have for his service. However, in view of the above, we
find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
___________________________________________________________________
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-2006-02591 in Executive Session on 7 December 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
Mr. Todd L. Schafer, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Aug 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPD, dated 30 Aug 06, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 15 Sep 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Sep 06.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Oct 06.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00494
________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 December 1984 and entered active duty. The Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Personnel Council (SAF/PC), subsequently directed the applicant be permanently retired for physical disability. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02799
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised that the applicant was erroneously considered, tested, and selected for promotion to MSgt during cycle 05E7 in AFSC 2T1X1. Based on the 14 Dec 04 promotion testing notification, and data listed in the MilPDS and the WAPS, the applicant was erroneously considered, tested, and selected for promotion in his 2T AFSC to MSgt during cycle 05E7. We therefore recommend he be provided...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01992
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant that the applicant be considered for supplemental promotion to the grade of SSgt (E-5) with a TAFMSD of 17 March 1986, as adjusted by AFPC in 2006, beginning with cycle 91B5, and, if he is selected for promotion to SSgt by supplemental consideration, he be provided any additional supplemental consideration required as a result of that selection for promotion to the grades of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01418
[Examiner’s Note: AFPC has administratively corrected the applicant’s record to reflect four awards of the AFAM] He be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) as if selected during cycle 03E7. 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03286
The applicant has tested two other times for promotion to E-7 and received an SKT score of 32.63 for cycle 01E7 and 44.32 for cycle 02E7. Since the WAPS was approved by the Secretary of the Air Force on 3 July 1968, over 50,000 tests have been manually scored and the results compared against the computer score. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C).
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02282
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-2005-02475
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-2005-02349
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-2005-02353
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-2005-02253
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...