RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02838
INDEX CODE: 131.05
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the Reserve grade of captain (0-3) effective and
with a date of rank (DOR) of 3 August 2006.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His time in grade (TIG) requirement from 1Lt to Captain was met on 3
August 2006. Therefore, his promotion to captain should be
retroactive to that date.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his
appointment paperwork, service history and record review paperwork.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was appointed in the Texas Air National Guard (TXANG) on 3
August 2005 in the Reserve grade of 1Lt. He was granted three years
constructive service credit. As such he would have been eligible for
consideration for promotion to the grade of captain on 3 August 2006
if he met the additional requirements of having at least one year of
active status and was approved for promotion by the Secretary of
Defense (SecDef).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1P0F recommends denial. A1P0F states the applicant did not meet
the promotion consideration criteria of having one year in an active
status and therefore did not qualify to have his name included on the
fiscal year 2007 (FY07) promotion list. A1P0F contends he will be
eligible for promotion consideration on the FY08 promotion list at the
earliest.
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 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
National Guard 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 requirements for
promotion included in Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-2504
are clear. 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-
2006-02838 in Executive Session on 16 August 2007, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1P0F, dated 19 Jun 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 07.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2006-03810
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-2006-03978
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and a copy of his point credit summary and his AGR application. As of 10 May 2006, he has almost 10 years of active duty time. 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 Guard office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-02538
He questions how his personal medical costs are going to be addressed by the military since no MTF treatment was provided. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was initiated in February, 2006. Not having the opportunity to complete medical treatment or care, an MEB should consider all of his medical diagnoses, conditions and treatments.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03015
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-2006-03365
His commander denied the request by the Secretary of the Air Force’s (SECAF’s) resolution of his application for transfer to the Retired Reserve. On 29 June 2004, HQ USAF/JAG found his package legally sufficient and recommended he be transferred to the Retired Reserve with the caveat that the SECAF determine his retirement grade. It appears the time period noted on the AFF IMT 642 was during 2002 when the applicant was working with the ANG Crisis Action Team (CAT) at the National...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03307
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-2006-01486
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His commander and the Adjutant General (TAG) of the State of Indiana recommended him for promotion consideration to the grade of colonel by the Spring 2006 Air National Guard Colonel Review Board that convened on 1 March 2006. His promotion package for consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Spring 2006 Air National Guard Colonel Review Board was submitted to NGB but was not in turn...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02632
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 4 June 1985. 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 BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03478
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03627
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of military travel orders and a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service. 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 Guard 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...