Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01208
Original file (BC-2007-01208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01208
            INDEX CODE:  112.07
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  19 OCT 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given a waiver of the promotion eligibility cutoff  date  (PECD)
for cycle 07E6.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Poor timing prevented him  from  receiving  briefings  explaining  his
reenlistment options pertaining to testing eligibility.


In support of his request, applicant provided  a  copy  of  Transition
Assistance program documents relative to his separation.


Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force as an airman basic  on
21 November 1991 and was progressively promoted to the grade of  staff
sergeant.   On  26  September  2002,  he  was  commissioned  a  second
lieutenant and was promoted to the grade of captain.  On 29  September
2006, he was honorably released as a  captain  due  to  officer  force
shaping.  He reenlisted on 26 February 2007 and was  accessed  in  the
rank of staff sergeant with a date of rank of  27 November  1998,  and
currently serves in that grade.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the  applicant’s  request  be  denied.   DPPPWB
states in part, based on his enlistment date of 26 February  2007,  he
was  not  eligible  for  promotion  consideration  during  cycle  07E6
according to AFI 36-2502, Table 2.1, Minimum Eligibility  Requirements
for Promotion.  Airmen must serve on active duty in enlisted status as
of the PECD (31 December 2006 for cycle 07E6).

The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
15 June 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.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice.  After a thorough review  of  the
applicant’s submission to include  his  contention  that  he  was  not
thoroughly counseled on his enlistment options, we are  not  persuaded
that the relief requested should be granted.  We took  notice  of  the
complete submission in judging the merits of  the  case;  however,  we
agree with the opinions and recommendation of the Air Force office  of
primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the member has not been the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.   Therefore,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to   warrant
favorable consideration of 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 Docket  Number  BC-2007-
01208 in Executive Session on 24 Jul 2007, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Vice Chair
                 Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member
                 Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Memo, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 May 07.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 07.




      PATRICIA J. ZARODKIEWICZ
      Vice Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00400

    Original file (BC-2007-00400.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Based on applicant’s DOR to Senior Airman (SrA), he was eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt for cycle 04E5; however, he did not possess the required 5 skill level by the promotion eligibility cutoff date (31 Mar 04) in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 2.1, Rule 2. The applicant’s name appeared on a roster reflecting that he was in training status code (TSC) “F” for this cycle as he still had not attained the required 5 skill level by the Promotion Effective Cutoff Date (PECD) 31...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02326

    Original file (BC-2007-02326.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current Air Force promotion policy, AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2, {sic – should be Rule 7} dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. Although the Board is sympathetic to the applicant’s near-miss for promotion, evidence...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC200603533

    Original file (BC200603533.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant filed an appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which was denied by the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). He is confident they will find significant and compelling evidence of a series of errors, injustices and unfair actions which resulted in the unjust EPR, and they will find sufficient justification to remove the unjust EPR from his record and grant him supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to Chief Master Sergeant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0002286

    Original file (0002286.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02286 COUNSEL: MAJ THOMAS L. FARMER HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive a direct promotion to master sergeant with an effective date of promotion and a date of rank as a promotee in the SDI 8J000, Correctional Custody career field for 1998 or 1999. The applicant believes that two of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | 2006-03085

    Original file (2006-03085.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03085 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 APR 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing out on 29 January 1997 and 30 December 1998 be declared void and removed from her records, and she receive supplemental promotion...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03085

    Original file (BC-2006-03085.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03085 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NOT INDICATED HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 APR 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) closing out on 29 January 1997 and 30 December 1998 be declared void and removed from her records, and she receive supplemental promotion...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900646

    Original file (9900646.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Apply three (3) points credit for the AFCM, 1OLC, to overall promotion score for cycle 96E7 and retroactively promote him to master sergeant for promotion cycle 96E7 and retire him in the grade of master sergeant, effective 30 Apr 97, with all back pay and allowances. This decoration does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 96E7 cycle because the RDP date is 5 Dec 96, after selections were made on 25 May 96 for the 96E7 cycle. After reviewing the evidence of record and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00026

    Original file (BC-2007-00026.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her AFAM should be considered for the 06E6 promotion cycle because the Décor 6 was dated 22 September 2005 and the nomination package was submitted before the Promotion Eligibility Promotion Cutoff Date (PECD). They state that Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-3806

    Original file (BC-2006-3806.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Current Air Force promotion policy (AFI 36- 2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2) dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the Décor 6 must be before the date of the selections for the cycle in question. The applicant provides no documentation (such as e-mail traffic or letters from his chain of command) to prove that he aggressively pursued the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01409

    Original file (BC-2007-01409.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response dated 24 Jun 07, the applicant states supplemental promotion consideration creates two injustices. 1) His records will not be scored by the same promotion board members as the rest of his promotion eligible peers; and 2) under the supplemental promotion process, he will never receive a promotion board score. ...