RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01181
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt)
effective 1 January 2006 with pay and benefits retroactive.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was PCA’d (Permanent Change of Assignment) into the position she
currently holds on 1 November 2005. The authorized grade was
allegedly downgraded from senior master sergeant (SMSgt) to master
sergeant (MSgt). In early February 2006, she found out that the
position was still authorized at SMSgt. She confronted her commander
regarding her request for promotion to SMSgt. Her commander waited
until she was beyond the two-year time in grade (TIG) requirement and
facing High Year of Tenure (HYT) before answering her request for
promotion with a statement indicating she was not eligible for
promotion as she did not have the TIG requirement met.
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement and copies of several pertinent email trails, manning
documents, personnel records and assorted other pertinent
correspondence.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 10 June 1975. She has
been progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant with a
date of rank (DOR) of 1 July 1995. In November 2005, she was
reassigned to a SMSgt authorization. She was not promoted however to
SMSgt. On 24 March 2006, she filed an Inspector’s General (IG)
complaint alleging her commander inconsistently applied policy with
respect to promotion and HYT date waivers. On 7 April 2006, the IG
notified her that her complaint would be better addressed through Air
Force Reserve Center (AFRC) through the Secretary of the Air Force
Inspector General, Complaint Resolution Directorate (SAF/IGQ). On 14
June 2006, HQ AFRC/IGQ responded to her complaint by determining that
she was not promoted to SMSgt because she did not have the two years
of retainability required for promotion. Further, her commander’s
decision to not grant her an HYT waiver, while granting waivers to
others, was based on the individual circumstances of each situation
and was within her commander’s authority and discretion to make.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFRC/A1B recommends denial. A1B states that after all other criteria
have been met the final decision to promote rests with the commander.
At the commander’s discretion it was determined additional time was
needed to observe the member’s duty performance. Upon reconsideration
for promotion the applicant’s HYT date prevented her from meeting the
Reserve Service Commitment requirement of two years for promotion.
A1B’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states AFRC never read her package prior to completing their
advisory opinion. She restates her previous evidence more in depth
through a detailed bullet paper.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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 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. 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. Evidence has not been
presented which would lead us to believe her commander’s actions were
inappropriate or that she abused her discretionary authority.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2007-01181 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
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Apr 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1B, dated 13 Jun 07, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 07.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jun 07, w/atch.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03516
In support of the appeal, applicant provided a personal statement, dated 30 September 2006, copies of a Chronology prepared by the 482 FW/IG, dated 5 August 2006, a HYTD Notification Memorandum from the 482 MSG/DPMSA, dated 9 January 2004, an Enlistment/Reenlistment Document (DD Form 4), dated 2 October 2004, a Report on Individual Person (RIP), dated 20 April 2005, an undated memorandum acknowledging HYT extension, an e-mail trail from May- July 2005 advising 482 MSG/CES/CC of HYT...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02503
________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/JA recommends relief, and states, in part; the applicant suffered a downgraded EPR due to lack of training and lack of response from her supervisors or chain of command. The evidence of record clearly establishes that she was not being properly trained and that her chain-of-command was derelict in training her. At the request of the applicant’s counsel, the DoD/IG reexamined the documentation...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00365
He states that at the time he was considered for promotion to MSgt, he had more than 12 months left until retirement. Counsel opines that based on the stipulations in AFI 36-2502 and AFRC 36-2102, the Air Force could have, and should have, granted the applicant the promotion to master sergeant (MSgt). The waiver was denied because the applicant would have only been able to perform duty as a MSgt for 10 months before reaching his mandatory retirement at High Year of Tenure Date of 20 Mar 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02307
The applicant filed an IG complaint containing one allegation that the superintendent of the Joint Service Honor Guard (JSHG) reprised against her for making a protected disclosure to the Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Office. Noting that the IG investigation substantiated reprisal, we find it reasonable to believe the applicant would have been continued on active duty orders for the period of 30 Sep 06 to 30 Sep 07. CHARLENE M. BRADLEY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2008-02307 MEMORANDUM FOR THE...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a member of the Air Force Reserve, was processed through the Disability Evaluation System (DES) when her disability case was referred to the Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB) in December 1999, for a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder. Counsel provided a statement supporting the applicant’s requests to change the IG findings; credit satisfactory service to 20 plus years; change the AF...
After thoroughly reviewing the documentation submitted with this appeal, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant's performance during the contested time period. The applicant asserts that there was insufficient supervision under the rater and additional rater for an Evaluation Performance Report (EPR) to be rendered; however, the Board finds insufficient documentation to support this contention. Exhibit F. Letter, Addendum to Report of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03629
Therefore, the applicant’s information was not updated in the promotion files and her records were not considered during the 02E8 promotion board. DPPRRP states that at the time the applicant withdrew her retirement, established procedures required the MPF to notify AFPC/DPPWB (promotions) when a member withdrew their retirement, making them eligible for promotion testing. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The pertinent military...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01621
After she filed a complaint through the Air National Guard Inspector General’s Office (ANG/IG) concerning abuse of authority by ANG/OM, the LOR was removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: According to the Chief of Organizational Support, Air National Guard Readiness Center, the applicant, while serving in the Maryland ANG on a Title 10 United States Code active duty tour, received an LOR on 8 October 2002 for twice...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02987
On 13 Jul 11, the DoD/IG office completed their review of the applicants reprisal case and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal/abuse of authority. On 19 Jan 12, the DoD/IG completed their review of the applicants complaint dated 4 Jul 11, and determined that there was no evidence of reprisal by her former commander. DPSID states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03256 INDEX CODE 110.02 106.00 XXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her 1995 general discharge be upgraded to honorable and the narrative reason of “Misconduct” be changed to “Convenience of the...