Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02026
Original file (BC-2007-02026.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02026
            INDEX CODE:  131.05

            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  27 DECEMBER 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her date of rank (DOR) to staff sergeant (E-5) be corrected.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

She reenlisted in the Air Force Reserve in June 2004 in the grade of  senior
airman (E-4), after being out of the service since 1991.

Her recruiter informed her that because of a lapse in  service  she  had  to
come in as an E-4.  She inquired about promotion to E-5 because it  was  her
understanding all you had to have was a five-skill level  and  the  time  in
service.  Her supervisor told  her  that  she  needed  to  go  to  technical
school, OJT, and get a new 5-skill level, which she did and  still  did  not
get promoted.  The person in charge of promotions told her  the  reason  she
did not get promoted was  because  it  showed  she  only  had  one  year  of
service.

In support of her request, applicant provided her personal statement.

The applicant's complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving in the Air Force  Reserve  in  the  grade  of
staff sergeant (E-5) with a DOR  of  1  Sep  06,  and  her  Duty  Air  Force
Specialty Code (DAFSC) is 3C151.

EXAMINER’S NOTE:  Applicant asserts  that  she  should  have  been  promoted
earlier based on a previously held 5-skill level AFSC that  she  held  while
on active duty.  However, that AFSC was withdrawn  due  to  lack  of  recent
performance.  AFSCs are downgraded for lack of recent  performance  and  can
subsequently be withdrawn.  AFSC’s awarded at the 7 or  9-skill  levels  are
withdrawn  after  8  years  of  non-performance,  and  5-skill  levels   are
withdrawn after six years of non-performance.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1B recommends denial.  Records indicate the applicant was awarded a 5-
skill level on 22 Aug 06 and was promoted to SSgt on 1 Sep 06, which is  the
correct promotion cycle for her circumstance.  However, if the  decision  of
the Board is to grant the relief sought, the applicant should  be  contacted
to provide additional information as necessary.

The AFRC/A1B evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She received her first 5-skill level in security forces during active  duty.
 She may have even held a 7-level because she was going to put  on  sergeant
before she left active duty.  She completed NCO school, and holds  a  second
5-skill level in combat crew communications.

Applicant’s complete response 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.  We  further
note, that while the applicant contends she had a 5-skill level  AFSC  while
on active duty, this AFSC was withdrawn due to  non-participation  for  over
thirteen years.  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  Docket  Number     BC-2007-
02026 in Executive Session on 16 October 2007, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Ms. Dee R. Reardon, Member
      Mr. Jeffery R. Shelton, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
02026 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/A1B, dated 5 Sep 07.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Sep 07.




                                             JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01796

    Original file (BC-2007-01796.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/A1B recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 31 August 2007 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03920

    Original file (BC-2003-03920.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/DPM recommended denial noting the applicant was in a retraining status at the time of her promotion to TSgt and did not have a three- skill level in the promotion AFSC as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. AFRC/DPM indicated that as a result of the applicant’s DOR being changed to 1 Mar 02, she did not meet the two- year minimum time in grade requirement for promotion to the grade...

  • 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-2007-00909

    Original file (BC-2007-00909.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The ARPC/A1B complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFCAF/PS has stated that after a review of the Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS), the applicant’s security clearance eligibility is coded as “Loss of Jurisdiction,” not suspended. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jun 07. Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFCAF/PS, dated 14 Aug 07.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02503

    Original file (BC-2007-02503.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ 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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01362

    Original file (BC-2006-01362.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In July 1994, she enlisted in the Air Force Reserve (USAFR) and was assigned to the Security Police Squadron at Westover Air Reserve Base as an SSgt. While she kept her supervisor and squadron informed of her status, she was lax in that she did not follow through by submitting the proper paperwork that would have put her in an inactive status until her Expiration Term of Service (ETS) in July 2000. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03673

    Original file (BC-2006-03673.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFRC/A1B recommends denying the requested relief. 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. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his request.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01249

    Original file (BC-2007-01249.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01249 INDEX CODE: 135.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 26 OCT 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 938, Request and Authorization for Active Duty Training/Active Duty Tour, (Reserve Order 0023), 27 Sep 04, Item 14, be amended to read 1 Oct 04 rather than 4 Oct 04....

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02811

    Original file (BC 2014 02811.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander was told that since the applicant was a ten year First Sergeant who did not hold a 9- skill level she could not remain a CMSgt and that there was not a method for First Sergeants to be promoted to CMSgt. A complete copy of the rebuttal is at Exhibit F. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s MILPDS record was reviewed and noted as follows: 16 Jan 03, member last held AFSC 2A671; 17 Jan 03, member was selected into a SDI 8F000 (First Sergeant); 1 Mar 11,...

  • 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...