RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01013
INDEX CODE: 102.07
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His promotion to technical sergeant (TSgt) be reinstated and be
effective on the date of the injustice along with any applicable back
pay, both active and retired.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His promotion to TSgt was held in abeyance beyond 12 months without
the concurrence of the wing commander (WG/CC) which was in violation
of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2502.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a copy of the
findings of an Inspector General (IG) investigation initiated by the
applicant.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to TSgt during
promotion cycle 04E5. He received a promotion sequence number of 60,
which would have incremented 1 August 2004. The promotion was held in
abeyance however, effective 30 November 2003 for his failure to
maintain weight standards. On 10 February 2006, he filed an IG
complaint concerning allegations of abuse of authority and allegations
that his promotion was mishandled. Of the four allegations, one was
substantiated by the IG findings. Specifically, the applicant’s
commander did not obtain WG/CC approval to withhold his promotion past
12 months in accordance with AFI 36-2502. At the 12 month point, his
commander had three options: Obtain WG/CC concurrence to extend the
promotion withhold, recommend promotion, or non-recommend promotion.
Applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration during the three
previous promotion cycles of 01E6 – 03E6 because of his failure to
maintain weight standards. He also received a referral Enlisted
Performance Report (EPR) for the period 2 July 2001 through 1 July
2002 for not maintaining weight standards, which is also an
eligibility condition. He was honorably retired effective 1 April
2006 in the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt).
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial. DPPPWB obtained an AFPC/JA opinion
regarding the IG’s substantiated allegation of abuse of authority and
whether or not it constituted an error or injustice. JA states,
compared to a non-recommendation action, withholding a promotion is a
more advantageous promotion propriety action for an airman. Airmen
whose promotions are withheld and then are subsequently recommended
for promotion receive their original date of rank (DOR). A non-
recommend voids the selection for promotion and requires the airman to
be selected again. Therefore, by extending the withhold to over
12 months it appears the commander acted in the best interest of the
applicant by potentially preserving his eligibility to his promotion
and associated back pay. While commanders are provided reasonable
time to gather facts, they cannot delay airman’s promotions by placing
them in withhold status pending improved behavior or performance by
the airmen. If the applicant did not meet standards and was not ready
for promotion, the commander should have non-recommended him for
promotion. There is no evidence the commander ever recommended the
applicant for promotion. According to AFPC/JA, the nature of the
abuse of authority is not one that merits the relief requested.
DPPPWB states an airman is eligible for promotion if recommended, in
writing, by the promotion authority. Since he retired in the grade of
SSgt, DPPPWB assumes he was never recommended for promotion.
DPPPWB’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
27 July 2007 for review and comment within 30 days. 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 timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. An Air Force IG investigation
substantiated an allegation that the applicant’s commander withheld
his promotion to TSgt beyond the 12 months allowed without approval
from the wing commander. We note his referral EPR for not meeting or
maintaining weight standards; however, virtually every other EPR in
his records, particularly those written during the period in question,
indicate he was meeting Air Force standards and he was either ready
for or recommended for immediate promotion. By allowing his promotion
withhold to languish without apparent action being taken otherwise the
Air Force failed to adhere to its own promotion directives as set
forth in AFI 36-2502. As a result, an error was created that we feel
must be corrected in favor of the applicant. Therefore, we recommend
that the records be corrected as indicated below.
______________________________________________________________
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 technical sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1
December 2004.
______________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2007-01013 in Executive Session on 5 September 2007, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
Ms. Glenda H. Scheiner, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 07, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 Jul 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Jul 07.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC
[pic]
Office Of The Assistant Secretary
AFBCMR BC-2007-01013
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed 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 technical sergeant effective and with a date of rank
of 1 December 2004.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02811
His performance to date did not warrant he be selected for reenlistment. On 7 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander concurred with the supervisor’s recommendation and nonselected him for reenlistment. At the end of the deferral period, the applicant received a letter stating his promotion had been placed in a withhold status because of his nonselection for reenlistment.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03246
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/JA also recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The applicant opines that since the withholding was a discretionary action, he believes it appropriate to discuss the necessity of the action taken by his commander in light of his exemplary record up to the time the action was taken. He states the discretionary action was not required by the circumstances.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02309
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02309 INDEX CODE: 110.03, 131.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 November 2002 and his High Year of Tenure (HYT) date be corrected to reflect March 2009...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02787
If time had been taken prior to enlistment to verify his body fat percentage he would have known that he did not meet Air Force standards. DPSFOC states in accordance with AFI 40- 502, Weight and Body Fat Measurement Program, weight measurements will be administered prior to processing personnel for promotion and body fat measurements will be administered when a member exceeds the MAW. DPPAE states that like all members of the Air Force, the applicant received briefings in Basic Military...
Promotion eligibility is regained only after receiving an EPR with an overall rating of “3” or higher that is not a referral report, and closes out on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the next cycle. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. The Chief, Performance Evaluations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPEP, also reviewed the appeal and notes the Medical Consultant’s review of the applicant’s medical condition. A complete copy of the evaluation...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04268
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of applicants requests to remove the contested EPRs ending 12 Aug 09 and 29 Jun 10. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice to warrant reversing his demotion to the grade of SSgt, promoting him to the grade of MSgt with back pay or removing the contested EPRs from his record. Therefore, aside from DPSOEs recommendation to time bar the applicants...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01498
The applicant’s medical records are not available; however, the applicant has provided the following information: At the time of retirement the applicant was 60 pounds over his maximum allowable weight for his height of 5’ 10 1/2”. The applicant retired after 20 years of service. However, if the Board does not agree with the nonrecommendation for promotion, it could direct promotion to TSgt with a date of rank and effective date of 1 October 2000.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00981
The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/JA recommended denial, stating in part, the applicant asserts numerous errors associated with the promotion propriety action that rendered him ineligible for promotion to MSgt and the nonjudicial punishment he received for forgery and making a false official statement. The applicant was selected for promotion to MSgt during cycle 04E7 and would have advanced to that grade on 1 Jan 05 if his commander had not withheld the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03737
However, on, or about, 5 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander nonrecommended him for promotion based on his failure to pass the fitness test based on scoring in the marginal category and his involvement in an alcohol related incident at a civic event while attending ALS. That his squadron commander improperly nonrecommended him for promotion on 5 Jan 05 in violation of AFI 36-2502 (Substantiated). The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
The applicant was considered and selected for promotion to the grade of TSgt by the 00E6 promotion cycle. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant should be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant by the 98E6 promotion cycle. Applicant’s disappointment is understandable but he has not presented sufficient persuasive evidence that he should be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant by the 98E6 cycle.