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 However, that AFSC was withdrawn due to lack of recent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subsequently be withdrawn.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withdrawn after 8 years of non-performance, and 5-skill levels are
withdrawn after six years of non-performance.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
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01796
_________________________________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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
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
________________________________________________________________ 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
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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
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 applicants 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
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...