Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03673
Original file (BC-2006-03673.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00505

    Original file (BC-2007-00505.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-00712.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2007-01181.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2006-03361.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2006-01369.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2003-03148.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2007-02023.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2005-02552.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2007-00705.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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

    Original file (BC-2007-01050.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...