RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03478
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her date of rank to senior airman be changed to 23 August 2006 rather
than 18 September 2006.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She passed her career development course (CDC) test on 23 August 2006
but her commander did not sign her promotion form until 18 September
2006. She contends her DOR should be the date she became eligible.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement, copies of her personnel record and travel orders.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Mississippi Air National Guard (MSANG) on 8
July 2003. She has been progressively promoted to the grade of senior
airman with a DOR of 18 September 2006. She has served satisfactorily
for over three years and is a current member of the MSANG.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1P0F recommends denial. 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. Enlisted members are eligible for promotion
under the unit vacancy (UV) promotion program only upon recommendation
from the commander and at the authority of the Adjutant General (TAG);
the commander is not under any obligation to promote a member that
meets the basic requirements until that commander feels the member is
ready for promotion and proceeds with the recommendation. The
applicant maintains her commander failed to promote her when she was
minimally eligible. Promotion is not an inherent right based on a
person achieving minimal requirements, but rather, is bestowed on
those who have demonstrated by previous performance, the propensity to
accept greater levels of responsibility that come with increased rank.
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 5
January 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 Force
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 applicant contends her commander should have
been promoted her upon achieving minimal requirements. A commander is
not under any obligation to promote a member who meets the basic
requirements until that commander feels that the member is ready for
promotion and proceeds with a recommendation. 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-
2006-03478 in Executive Session on 13 February 2007, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Nov 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1P0F, dated 26 Dec 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jan 07.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
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-2006-03307
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-2006-03627
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...
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-2006-03260
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, NGB/A1P0F, dtd 26 Dec 06, w/atch AFBCMR 1535 Command Drive EE Wing, 3rd Floor Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002 applicant Your application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-03260, has been finalized. The Board determined that the military records should be corrected as set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff United States Air Force. Copy of...
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-2006-03365
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-2006-03109
In fact, due to an administrative error, she continued to serve beyond her MSD of 1 June 2006 and was only separated after the error was discovered. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant disagrees with NGB’s opinions and has provided numerous points of contention along with explanations for each. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we can find no documented instance...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02637
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, NGB/A1P0F, dtd 26 Dec 06, w/atch AFBCMR 1535 Command Drive EE Wing, 3rd Floor Andrews AFB, MD 20762-7002 Your application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2006-02637, has been finalized. The Board determined that the military records should be corrected as set forth in the attached copy of a Memorandum for the Chief of Staff United States Air Force. Copy of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03145
He was told repeatedly during this time that all AGR, Title 10 members were put into “Returned To Duty” status since active duty couldn’t tell the ANG what to do with their people. In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement and copies of pertinent medical records, Congressional inquiries, retirement documents, and MEB and IPEB documentation. Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit...