Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03361
Original file (BC-2006-03361.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-03361
            INDEX CODE:  135.00

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:4 MAY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her records be corrected to reflect:

      a.    Her date of rank (DOR) as July 2005.

      b.    She receive points for annual  training  (AT)  for  fiscal
year (FY) 2005.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her promotion was never properly addressed.  Her AT was overlooked and
her orders were never received in 2005-2006.  She attached a  copy  of
an Inspector General (IG) complaint she was going to file.

In support of her appeal,  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  her  IG
complaint, E-mails, excerpt from AFI 36-2502, Chapter 4, Single  Unit
Retrieval Format (SURF).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force  Reserves  (AFRes)
in the grade of senior airman (SRA).

EXAMINER’S NOTE:  On 20 December 2006, the applicant was notified that
her promotion to the rank SSgt (E-5) was approved with a DOR effective
of 1 July 2005.  Therefore, the remaining issue for  consideration  by
the Board is the AT points.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFRC/DPM recommends the requested relief  be  denied.   They  state
that according to the documentation the applicant provided she was not
denied AT, but did not want to perform the  required  AT  due  to  the
location that the AT was offered.

A complete copy of the AFRC/DPM evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  states  she
submitted her orders for AT for approval in Air  Force  Reserve  Order
Writing System (AROWS).  Her application was routed to Lt Col  W.  and
he approved them.  On April 25th Lt Col W. pulled them  back  and  she
never received orders and could not perform her AT.

She hopes her AT points will be added to her file and that she receive
the difference in pay when performing her 2006 IDT’s as an E-4 when it
should be E-5 with 5 years of service (Exhibit E).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or an 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
and adopt its rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
applicant has failed to sustain  her  burden  that  she  has  suffered
either an error  or  an  injustice.   As  stated,  the  applicant  was
notified that her promotion to the rank of E-5 was approved with a DOR
of 1 July 2005.  The applicant contends  that  she  was  not  able  to
perform her AT because  she  never  received  orders.   The  applicant
submitted a copy of the Air Force Reserve Order Writing System (AROWS)
reflecting her request for AT was submitted, however, they were denied
because the training dates were incorrect.   The  applicant  indicates
she did everything she could to try and resolve the issues of her  AT.
However, the Board  finds  no  evidence  has  been  submitted  by  the
applicant to support her contentions that she used  due  diligence  in
requesting her AT.  Therefore, in view of the  foregoing  and  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

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session 29 March 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
                       Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 06, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFRC/DPM, dated 20 Dec 06.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 07.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                             RICHARD A. PETERSON
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2000-02768A

    Original file (BC-2000-02768A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 24 October 2002, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) considered applicant’s request that the Article 15 imposed on 16 February 1994, and the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 April 1998, be removed from his records and he be sent to a Replacement Training Unit (RTU) to be re-qualified and reinstated in an active status as an Air National Guard (ANG) fighter pilot in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03659

    Original file (BC-2005-03659.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. The law provides benefits if an individual separates with less than a full term of service for hardship, service-connected disability, disability existing prior to entering active duty, physical or mental condition that interferes with duty, or reduction in force. Airmen are given entry-level separation uncharacterized service characterization when separation is initiated in the first 180 days of continuous active service.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800590

    Original file (9800590.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00590 (Case 3) INDEX CODE: 107.00, 111.00 COUNSEL: AREA DEFENSE COUNSEL HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Letter of Evaluation (LOE), AF Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation Sheet), dated 7 Sep 96, be removed from his records; and, that he be provided a letter of apology from the evaluator (Lt Col K---) of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0002768

    Original file (0002768.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant should submit a request for the removal of the Article 15 to the commander who directed that it be placed in his records. In addition, the majority of the Board is sufficiently persuaded that the Article 15 should also be removed from the applicant’s record. Based on the available evidence of record, I find no basis upon which to favorably consider this portion of the application, and strongly recommend you deny the majority’s recommendation to remove the contested Article 15...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02894

    Original file (BC-2006-02894.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior to entering active duty, applicant was advised, in a letter dated 29 Jan 03 that based on the current board schedules he would be eligible for promotion IPZ by the CY05A Lt Col board. Applicant cites DOD Instruction 1320.13, para 4.1 and Table E2.T1, for the proposition that he should have been required to meet the CY06 promotion board IPZ with his original Air Force Academy graduate year group rather than having been “accelerated” to meet a promotion board a year earlier. Title...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03878

    Original file (BC-2005-03878.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03878 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 JUN 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The loss of good (satisfactory) years from Feb 03 to Sep 05 be reinstated, and she receive an enlisted incentive bonus payment and debt relief in the amount of $771.00 for Servicemember Group...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03633

    Original file (BC-2006-03633.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/A1BR recommends the requested relief be denied. A complete copy of the HQ AFRC/A1BR evaluation is attached at Exhibit B. We took note of the applicant’s contentions and the documentation provided in support of his request for an In Line of Duty Determination for sleep apnea and retroactive lost participation points and time in grade for retirement from December 2004 through October 2005.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0000980

    Original file (0000980.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a member of the Air Force Reserve, was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) when her disability case was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) in December 1999, for a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder. Counsel provided a statement supporting the applicant’s requests to change the IG findings; credit satisfactory service to 20 plus years; change the AF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00966

    Original file (BC-2008-00966.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by AFRC/JA at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/JA recommends partial relief by removing the OPR. The IG report provides while there was no proven abuse of authority the issuing officer and his commander both, after learning the facts, stated they would have acted differently,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9901037

    Original file (9901037.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01037 INDEX CODE: 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected to reflect that she was not demoted from the Reserve grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) to staff sergeant (SSgt). In support of her appeal, the applicant provided documentation pertaining to the demotion action,...