RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03419
INDEX CODE: 112.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 4/1, Enlistment/Reenlistment Document, be corrected to
show he enlisted in the Michigan Air National guard (MIANG) as a
technical sergeant (E6) rather than as a staff sergeant (E5), and that
his date of rank (DOR) be changed from his date of enlistment with the
MIANG to 25 April 2000.
_________________________________________________________________
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. He states neither normal protocol
nor ANG Instructions were followed during his enlistment process with
the MIANG. He should either have been enlisted in the higher grade
(with commander’s authorization) or he should have been enlisted as a
TSgt and then immediately administratively demoted to the next lower
grade. Neither of these actions happened, he was erroneously enlisted
into an E6 position as an E5.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of his DD
Form 4/1, numerous Army and ARNG personnel forms, his MIANG enlistment
order, a letter of support from his supervisor and a personal
statement.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the US Army on 2 February 1989. During his four
and one-half years in the Army he was progressively promoted to the
grade of sergeant (E5). He left the US Army on 1 September 1993 and
joined the ARNG on 2 September 1993. He was progressively promoted to
the grade of E6 with a DOR of 25 April 2000. He served for over nine
years and left the ARNG on 23 June 2003. He enlisted in the MIANG on
24 June 2003 as an E5. He is currently serving with the MIANG and has
over 17 years of total service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1P0F recommends denial. A1P0F cites the ANG’s Subject Matter
Expert (SME) as the chief reason for their recommendation. 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 recommendation. ANGI 36-2002 states members being
accessed less than six years from their Date of Separation (DOS) from
any military branch of service other than an Air Force component are
to be accessed at the maximum grade of E5. Addressing his request to
change his DOR the SME states members being accessed from a component
other than an Air Force component shall have a DOR equal to the Date
of Enlistment (DOE) unless the member has a convertible skill. As the
applicant did not have a convertible skill, he was properly accessed
with a DOR of 24 June 2003, his date of enlistment into the MIANG.
A1POF’s’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant contends another ANG accession from the US Army that was
enlisted under the same conditions as he was but had less time in
grade, less time in service, and fewer Non-Commissioned Officer
training courses, yet he was enlisted under the same Air Force
Specialty (AFS) at the grade of E6. He questions whether or not the
regulation cited by the ANG would apply equally to all accessions
across the board.
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
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. ANGI 36-2002, Table 1.8
cited by the ANG is clear and unambiguous. The applicant simply did
not qualify to be enlisted in the higher grade. In fact, he was
enlisted in the highest grade allowable by the Instruction as an E5.
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-
2006-03419 in Executive Session on 1 March 2007, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Panel Chair
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
Ms. Kathleen B. O’Sullivan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Oct 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1P0F, dated 23 Jan 07, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jan 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, APPLICANT, dated 23 Feb 07.
LAURENCE M. GRONER
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01082
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01082 INDEX CODE: 128.08 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The separation pay he received be adjusted and paid to him as per the DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 8 June 2000 indicates. On 28 June 2000, ANG/DPFOM requested the Air Reserve Personnel...
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-2007-01776
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
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-2006-02873
Had he been selected for promotion by this Board, he would have a DOR of 7 April 2006. When the error was realized, the ANG promoted him via Position Vacancy (PV) and recommended he apply to this Board to have his DOR and PED corrected to the earlier date. ______________________________________________________________ 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 Reserve...
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-2006-03015
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-03620
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He attained the grade of SSgt while in the US Navy and contends he should receive credit for the time in grade he held in that rank. He was promoted to staff sergeant (SSgt) with a date of rank (DOR) of 22 March 2004. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00944
The decision of the Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) to non-retain him was in reprisal for his efforts to correct his civilian personnel records to reflect he was in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) instead of the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). In this case, the state of Michigan followed the appropriate procedural and program requirements during the selective retention process of the applicant. The stated basis of the Boards decision to non-retain the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05761
While he was not a member of the NVANG for a year prior to the suspense for being submitted for promotion, he had been on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) continuously since he was commissioned in 2008 and therefore should have been recommended for promotion during the Calendar Year 2011B (CY11B) Second Half Captain Promotion Selection Board. However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, we are not...