RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00485
INDEX CODE: 107.00
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of rank (DOR) and effective date to the grade of captain be
changed from 24 Jan 07 to 22 Nov 06.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He met all requirements to be promoted on time. All Guard and Reserve
officers who were eligible for promotion to captain between 1 Oct 06 and 23
Jan 07 had their DORs delayed to 24 Jan 07. This takes approximately two
months away from his DOR and delays future promotions. This injustice
allows active duty captains who would be promoted from 23 Nov 06 – 23 Jan
07 to out rank him and other Guard and Reserve captains. He was on active
duty orders during this period which should invalidate any argument that
the Guard and Reserves fall under a different promotion standard.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a copy of his active duty
deployment orders. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System indicates the
applicant’s Total Federal Commissioned Service Date as 22 Nov 02. He is
currently serving in the IA ANG in the grade of captain, with a date of
rank and an effective date of 24 Jan 07.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1POP states the applicant was selected for promotion on the FY07
Captain Promotion list. This list was approved by the Secretary of Defense
on 23 Jan 07 and was publicly released on 24 Jan 07. Normally, the FY07
list would have been approved before 1 Oct 06, but there was a delay in the
approval. If the list had been approved before 1 Oct 06, the applicant
would be entitled to a DOR and effective date of 22 Nov 06, the date he
obtained two years time in grade as a first lieutenant. The complete
NGB/A1POP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was sent to the applicant on 3 Jul 07
for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, this office has
not received a response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 and do not find it
supports a determination that the applicant's DOR should be changed. In
this respect, it appears the applicant’s DOR and effective date of
promotion were appropriately established in compliance with Air Force
instructions and Title 10 U.S.C. The statute does allow correction of the
record if determined that the appointment to the grade is made by reason of
unusual circumstances that caused an unintended delay in the processing or
approval of the promotion list. However, after our review of the evidence
before us we are not persuaded that the delay was the result of an unusual
circumstance. Accordingly, finding no evidence by the applicant showing he
was treated differently than others similarly situated or that his DOR and
effective date were established contrary to the provisions of the governing
instruction or Title 10 U.S.C., we find the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden of proof of the existence of either an error or an injustice.
Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to
our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 2007-00485 in
Executive Session on 4 Aug 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Member
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2007-
00485 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Feb 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POP, dated 26 Jun 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Jul 07.
JAMES W. RUSSEL III
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-00575
It is disheartening as he watched his active duty JAG counterparts promoted on time, yet as a Guard JAG he is held to the same standard as far as knowledge, training, and deployments, yet he was promoted more than a year later. There is a requirement that the officer be in an active status for one year prior to submission for promotion on a promotion list, as well as meeting the two year time-in-grade requirement. In this respect, it appears the applicants DOR was appropriately...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00660
The DOR and promotion effective date for officers selected for promotion on the captain's list will be the date the officers complete two (2) years time in grade or upon Secretary of Defense approval, or upon public release date, whichever is later. The complete NGB/A1POP evaluation is at Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Sep 08.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02887
She missed the Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) Captain Promotion Board, and had to wait until May 07, to meet the FY08 Captain Promotion Board, where she was selected for promotion. She entered the ANG on 3 Aug 06, as a first lieutenant and was promoted to the grade of captain by the FY08 Captains Promotion Board effective 1 Oct 07. Therefore, the Board agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopts its rationale as the basis for our...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03274
The date of rank for promotion on the captain’s list will be the date the officers complete two years time in grade or upon the Secretary of Defense’s approval, or upon the public release date, whichever is later. Regardless of the fact that the applicant completed two years TIG for promotion on 22 Nov 06, he could not be promoted until 24 Jan 07, the date of public release. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03680
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03680 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Therefore, after careful review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, including her nursing license, we believe she is entitled to constructive service credit from the time she began working full time, and her date of...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01560
His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) did not reflect records corrections which contributed to his IDE nonselection, and the 2-year gap in his record makes it virtually impossible to receive fair consideration for IDE. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00635
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00635 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The effective date on his current promotion order be backdated to 26 May 2010, the date the February 2010, majors list was signed. The package could not be processed because his 2009 and 2010 Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) were not signed until...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02328
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 30 Nov 99, he separated from active duty and returned to active duty on 1 May 02 in the grade of captain. DPPPO states the applicant was selected for promotion to major by the CY97C Major Central Selection Board (CSB). The applicant was returned to active duty on 1 May 02 as a captain with a date of rank of 26 Aug 90.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03994
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03994 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Date of Rank (DOR) be changed from 1 Oct 07 to 11 Jul 06. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force, which is at Exhibit B. We took notice of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05761
While he was not a member of the NVANG for a year prior to the suspense for being submitted for promotion, he had been on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) continuously since he was commissioned in 2008 and therefore should have been recommended for promotion during the Calendar Year 2011B (CY11B) Second Half Captain Promotion Selection Board. However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, we are not...