RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01622
INDEX CODE: 131.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His promotion effective date and date of rank to senior airman (SrA) be
adjusted from 1 March 2007 to 1 August 2006.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His promotion to SrA was delayed due to an administrative oversight.
According to Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-2502, Table 2.1, Note
4, Promotion of Airman, he was eligible for promotion on 1 August 2006
while attending a lengthy technical school (in excess of 139 days).
In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of his
promotion order, student training report, excerpt of ANGI 36-2502, and
active duty special orders with amendments.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS), the applicant is
currently serving in the Montana Air National Guard in the grade of SrA
with a date of rank of 1 March 2007. He has one year total satisfactory
service as of 16 November 2006 and a projected date of separation of 16
November 2011.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1POF recommends denial of the applicant’s request to adjust his date
of rank for SrA to 1 August 2006. A1POF states that no evidence was found
to indicate the member was considered eligible for promotion during the
timeframe requested. The ANG liaison at Sheppard Air Force Base did not
send any communication regarding the applicant’s promotion until 7 March
2007. Furthermore, evidence exists in the applicant’s Student Training
Report indicating he was not making sufficient academic progress during
that timeframe due to his placement on academic hold stemming from failure.
The A1POF evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 14
September 2007 for review and response within 30 days. As of this date,
this office has received no 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 an error or an 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. 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 this application in Executive
Session on 29 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. Mark J. Novitski, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2007-01622:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 May 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POF/A1POF, dated 7 Sep 07.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Sep 07.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
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 | CY2008 | BC-2007-02322
She would like the Board to redress this situation and render a final decision that will allow for her immediate promotion to the rank of Lt Col, with an effective date of 9 September 2001, the date she was first eligible for promotion and assigned to an authorized Lt Col position. Since that date, she has not been selected for positions requiring the grade of Lt Col. ANG officers selected for promotion to Lt Col who are in a full-time Air Guard Reserve/Statutory Tour position, and not...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03053
The State HQ based their denial of his promotion on ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2502, wherein it is stated members on 4-P (permanent) medical status are not eligible for promotion consideration. A1POF contends he was denied promotion on 6 February 2004 by the TXANG as he was ineligible in accordance with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, and Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3209, Separation and Retirement Procedures for Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Members. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01514
He had 4 years TIS and 3 years TIG at the time of his enlistment and other than the 3-level waiver, was fully qualified to be promoted to the grade of Senior Airman/E-4. A waiver was submitted, however the waiver was not timely approved because it lacked the necessary proof of certification. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03355
Based on the applicant’s DOR as a SrA of 13 June 1992, the first time he was considered for promotion to the grade of SSgt was cycle 94A5. The AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In an undated letter, the applicant reiterated his contention that based on Air Force Pamphlet 36-2241, paragraph 15.41.2.SrA, which states that A1Cs are promoted to SrA with either 36 months TIS and 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00997
He returned to training on 7 September 2000, completed the training on 24 January 2001 and was promoted to SrA on 10 February 2001. Further, DPPI notes that the applicant refers to AFI 36-2502, Airmen Promotion, to validate his request for DOR change. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00505
He missed over three years of participation due to his service connected conditions; however, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) has so far approved restoring 2 ½ years of his pay, allowances, and participation points from his previous application (AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2006-01369). In support of his application, the applicant provides two personal statements, a letter of command support, response to Congressional Inquiry, AF/JAA legal review, Line of Duty...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03478
She contends her DOR should be the date she became eligible. Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36- 2502, Promotion of Airman, explicitly states that “…the immediate commander must first recommend the airman.” This recommendation must be based on a period of time to allow sufficient evaluation of the member’s performance. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02034
In February 2007, the applicant was considered but was not selected for promotion by the FY08 Reserve Major Promotion Board. She ended up meeting the promotion board in the same Category E position as the first board. DPB states there is no apparent error in her Officer Selection Record (OSR) that could result in Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration in lieu of either the FY07 or FY08 USAFR Major Promotion Boards.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00400
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...