RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03673
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATED: 3 JUN 08
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect:
a. His date of rank (DOR) as 1 April 1979.
b He be promoted to master sergeant (MSgt) with eligibility
in 1998.
c. He receive all back pay from 1 April 1979.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was promoted to the grade of E-6, while in the Army National Guard
(AANG) with an effective date of 1 April 1979. The promotion occurred
prior to his joining the Air Force Reserves (AFRes) but he was not
notified of the promotion until September 2006.
In support of his appeal the applicant submitted a copy a promotion
order.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s date initial entry uniformed service (DIEUS) was 5
June 1968.
Per Order 4-1, the applicant was promoted to the grade of Specialist
(E-5) on 1 April 1979.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFRC/A1B recommends denying the requested relief. They state there
is no evidence to support the applicant’s contention that he was
promoted to E-6 on 1 April 1979. The applicant provided documentation
showing he was promoted to the grade of E-5 on 1 April 1979 and
therefore, based on that documentation the applicant is not entitled
to receive back pay. Furthermore the documentation the applicant
provided does not support the applicant’s request for subsequent
promotion to master sergeant (MSgt). AFRes enlisted personnel are
promoted under the unit vacancy promotion program. Enlisted personnel
must be in a higher graded position, meet eligibility conditions to
include completing the appropriate level of Professional Military
Education (PME), be recommended by the supervisor and approved by the
unit commander (promotion authority). It is the duty of the unit
commander to render the decision to promote an individual based on
personnel meeting eligibility requirements as of the last day of the
month prior to the promotion month. Furthermore, the applicant has
not completed the appropriate PME for promotion consideration to MSgt
and is not eligible for promotion consideration. They further
recommend the applicant provide additional documentation to help
substantiate his claim.
A complete copy of the AFRC/A1B evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 5
January 2007 for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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 the recommendation of the Air
Force and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or an injustice. The
applicant requested his DOR be changed to 1 April 1979, a subsequent
promotion to MSgt and receive all back pay since 1 April 1979. The
applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his request.
However, he did provide documentation showing he was promoted to the
grade of E-5 in the Army National Guard effective 1 April 1979, but
provided no documentation showing he was promoted to the grade of E-6.
AFRes enlisted personnel are promoted under the unit vacancy
promotion program. In order to be promoted under this program the
servicemember must be in a higher graded position, meet the
eligibility requirements (i.e., PME), be recommended by the supervisor
and approved by the promotion authority. There was no evidence
submitted showing the applicant met the criteria under the unit
vacancy program to be selected for promotion. 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-
2006-03673 in Executive Session on 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
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Nov 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFRC/A1B, dated 19 Dec 06.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Jan 07.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00505
He missed over three years of participation due to his service connected conditions; however, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) has so far approved restoring 2 ½ years of his pay, allowances, and participation points from his previous application (AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2006-01369). In support of his application, the applicant provides two personal statements, a letter of command support, response to Congressional Inquiry, AF/JAA legal review, Line of Duty...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00712
AFBCMR BC-2006-00712 INDEX CODE: 102.00 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01181
She was not promoted however to SMSgt. In this respect, a commander is not under any obligation to promote a member who meets the basic requirements, such as TIG, until that commander feels that the member is ready for promotion and proceeds with a recommendation. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03361
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/DPM recommends the requested relief be denied. 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). However, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01369
The complete AFRC/A1B evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s counsel responds by requesting the Board consider and address the issue of interest accrued on back pay, if awarded, and any leave the applicant would have earned during this time period. Additionally, it is a position supported by AFI 37-3212. The Air Force offices of primary...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-03148
ARPC notified her that she was not qualified because she had mistakenly been enrolled in and completed the Senior Non-Commissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA) course instead of the required NCOA and was referred to the ARPC Promotions Section. The confusion concerning promotion with completion of SNCOA is based on an exception listed in Table 4.2, Note 8, which states: “Do not promote an enlisted member to MSgt unless they complete NCOA. After completing the course, she was told more than once...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02023
AFRC asserts that “he had to request voluntary AGR curtailment which would release him from his contract of current active duty service (AGR Tour) with the Air Force Reserve, and he had to be conditionally released from the AFR for each of the acronyms stated there. Of significance to the Board is the fact that although he claims his AGR Tour was wrongfully terminated, he completed and submitted the AGR Tour Curtailment Worksheet on 26 August 2006, with a stated reason for his request being...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02552
He was told he was eligible for a board hearing of his peers, but that if he would sign the demotion paperwork, he would be demoted with the understanding the Wing Commander could reinstate his grade to MSgt at any time. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In regards to the applicant’s claim he would have requested a board hearing had he known his DOR would have changed, DPFOC contends ANGI 36-2503 does not offer the opportunity for those demoted to appear before a board. The office responsible...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00705
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00705 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 8 SEPTEMBER 2008 __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to the grade of chief master sergeant (CMSgt). On 1 September 2006, he was promoted to CMSgt. A1B states in accordance with AFI 36-2502, paragraph 4.9,...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01050
When the CMSgt retired in Sep 04, the commander placed another SMSgt in the position since his medical appeal was not complete and it did not appear that he would have the two years retainablity because of his age. 1) The MPF should have placed his name on the promotion roster in either May or Jul; 2) He should have been placed on T-3 status similar to active duty members when diagnosed with cancer, which would have allowed him to continue duty in a drilling status, and be promoted to...