Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02632
Original file (BC-2006-02632.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02632
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Block 5b of his  National  Guard  Bureau  (NGB)  Form  22,  Report  of
Separation and Record of Service, be changed to read E-5 rather than E-
4.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He recently enlisted in the Puerto Rico Air  National  Guard  (PRANG).
His last rank prior to  being  transferred  to  the  Individual  Ready
Reserve (IRR) was staff sergeant (E-5) with a date of rank (DOR) of 29
February 1992.  His NGB 22 and the  order  honorably  discharging  him
from the California ANG (CAANG) and assigning  him  to  the  IRR  both
mistakenly refer to him as an E4.  To his knowledge,  nothing  in  his
records indicates a demotion.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  has  provided  copies  of  an
honorable discharge certificate, his NGB Form 22, his promotion  order
to E-5, dated 24 February 1992,  and  his  discharge  order  dated  16
November 1993.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 June 1985.  He served
for two years. From 4 June 1987 until 3 June 1989 his record shows  no
military service or affiliation.  Between 4 June 1989 and 3 June  1992
his record  indicates  service  with  a  Reserve  component  where  he
accumulated three satisfactory years  of  service  towards  a  Reserve
retirement – part of which the record shows was spent  in  the  CAANG.
The applicant enlisted in the CAANG on 15 February 1991 and, according
to his NGB Form 22, he was promoted to the grade of E4, senior airman,
with a DOR of  1 May  1993.   However,  a  promotion  order  dated  24
February 1992 included in his application indicates he was promoted to
the grade of E-5, staff sergeant with a  DOR  of  29 February  1992  –
approximately 15 months prior to  the  stated  DOR  to  senior  airman
listed on his NGB Form  22.   On  13  November  1993,  he  voluntarily
resigned, was honorably discharged from the CAANG, and was assigned to
the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), approximately six months after  he
was allegedly promoted to SSgt.  The record shows  he  did  not  serve
from 13 November 1993 until 3 June 2006  when  he  enlisted  with  the
Puerto Rico ANG (PRANG).  During his first year of  service  with  the
PRANG, he  earned  only  31  participation  points  of  the  50 points
required to obtain a satisfactory year of service.   He  is  currently
serving in the PRANG  as  a  senior  airman  and  has  five  years  of
satisfactory service towards a Reserve retirement.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1P0F recommends  denial.   As  no  supporting  documentation  was
provided, A1P0F was  unable  to  ascertain  any  evidence  that  would
substantiate his claim.

A1P0F’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3
July 2007 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 filed within three years after the alleged
error or injustice was discovered, or could have been  discovered,  as
required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC  1552),
and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  The  essential  facts  which  give
rise to the application were known to the applicant  long  before  the
asserted date of discovery.  Knowledge of those facts constituted  the
date of discovery and the  beginning  of  the  three-year  period  for
filing.  Thus, the application is untimely.

3.  Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552  permits  us,  in  our  discretion,  to
excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice.  We have  carefully
reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record, and we  do  not
find a  sufficient  basis  to  excuse  the  untimely  filing  of  this
application.  The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for delay
in filing and has admitted that he should have  addressed  this  issue
some nine years ago.  Therefore, we are not persuaded that the  record
raises issues of error or injustice that  require  resolution  on  its
merits.  Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in the interest
of justice to excuse the untimely filing of the 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-
2006-02632 in  Executive  Session  on  27  November  2007,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
      Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
      Mr. Kurt R. LaFrance, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 August 2006, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, NGB/A1P0F, dated 19 June 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 July 07.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00574

    Original file (BC-2007-00574.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    During the active duty continuation, he was paid BAH II instead of the BAH I that he was entitled to. During the time the AFBCMR continued him on active duty, he received BAH II at the with-dependent rate, Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) and Aviator Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) from 1 October 2004 through 31 January 2006, less any offsets for civilian earnings during that time frame. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0003048

    Original file (0003048.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03048 INDEX CODES: 100.06, 110.02, 110.03 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Special Order A1-175, dated 19 Aug 99, honorably discharging him from the Puerto Rico Air National Guard (PRANG) on 19 Aug 99 be invalidated. On 21 March 00, pursuant to its authority over federal labor/management...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03307

    Original file (BC-2006-03307.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The letter asked that he call and he did so numerous times, but received no answer. He returned to duty with the ANG on 20 November 1984 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 1994. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While the applicant appreciates the ANG’s recommendation that his former grade be reinstated, he provides evidence he was within weeks or...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03419

    Original file (BC-2006-03419.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After serving in the Army National Guard (ARNG) in the grade of E6, he was enlisted into a position with the MIANG that was an authorized technical sergeant (E6) position. The attached SME input states the applicant’s enlistment with the MIANG was correct and cites Air National Guard (ANG) 36-2002, Enlistment and Reenlistment in the ANG and as a Reserve of the Air Force, as the basis for their...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01776

    Original file (BC-2007-01776.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY2008 | BC-2006-03810

    Original file (BC-2006-03810.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03810 INDEX CODE: 131.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 11 June 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His promotion effective date (PED) and his date of rank (DOR) to the grade of major be changed from 18 October 2006 to 1 May 2006. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03015

    Original file (BC-2006-03015.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    His date of rank to first lieutenant was 20 May 2003. Applicant was eligible for the fiscal year 2006 (FY06) ANG Captain’s Promotion list. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of CAPTAIN, Air Force Reserve, with a Date of Rank (DOR) and a Promotion Effective Date (PED) of 20 May 2005 rather than 1...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03923

    Original file (BC-2006-03923.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    For over 4 years he could not be promoted to the grade of SMSgt by any military service with a ‘2’ EPR in his records along with a denial of reenlistment. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2009-03821

    Original file (BC-2009-03821.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was unjustly separated from his position as Assistant Adjutant General (AG) of the Puerto Rico ANG by the former Acting AG in a blatant act of reprisal for his testimony before the Senate of Puerto Rico regarding the Acting AG’s possible confirmation. However, this action was corrected by the subsequent AG’s order which directed the applicant’s discharge from the Puerto Rico ANG and transfer to the USAFR. Therefore, we believe it appropriate to correct his records to reflect that he was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03478

    Original file (BC-2006-03478.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She contends her DOR should be the date she became eligible. Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36- 2502, Promotion of Airman, explicitly states that “…the immediate commander must first recommend the airman.” This recommendation must be based on a period of time to allow sufficient evaluation of the member’s performance. 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...