RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02491
INDEX CODE: 129.02, 133.03
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His pay grade be shown as E-4, rather than E-3, so that he may reenlist in
the Air National Guard (ANG).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After serving 6 years, 8 months, and 26 days, he was passed over in rank,
and although illness may have played a part, he was still a member.
Although he is not saying the ANG owes him a second chance, his injury was
caused by the military and he would still be in the Guard if not for this
injury. Now that the problem has been corrected, perhaps the military will
let him reenlist, and his pay grade must be E-4 or better to do so.
In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a personal statement
pertaining to the medical condition that caused his separation, his
National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of
Service, effective 21 November 1998, a letter from the Surgical Clinic,
PLLC, concerning a revascularization on the left lower extremity in October
2006, and a DD Form 293, Application for the review of Discharge from the
Armed Forces of the United States, dated 18 July 2007.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Michigan ANG (MIANG) on 26 February 1992, and
was separated in the grade of airman first class (A1C - E-3) on 21 November
1998 due to medical disqualification. He completed 6 years, 8 months, and
26 days of total service for pay, and 6 years of satisfactory
service for Reserve Retired Pay eligibility at age 60.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PS recommends denial of relief. On 1 November 2007, the MIANG
advised that the applicant was promoted to the grade of SRA/E-4 on
10 October 1997. However, a request was made by his unit on 14 October
1997 to pull the request for promotion due to the fact that he was being
processed for unsatisfactory participation. The order promoting him was
then revoked “in part” to remove him from the promotion order. On 12
December 2007, NGB/A1POFM concurred with the recommendation to deny the
requested relief.
The NGB/A1PS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21
December 2007, for review and comment, within 30 days. However, 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
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. Evidence
has been presented that his unit requested he be removed from the October
1997 SRA/E-4 promotion order due to unsatisfactory participation, and he
was subsequently separated in the pay grade of E-3. 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-2007-02491
in Executive Session on 12 February 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Karen A. Holloman, Member
Mr. Wallace F. Beard, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 17 Dec 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Dec 07.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03240
After calling the Inspector General (IG) he was told the JAG NCO was no longer with the JAG and all his files had been lost. On 31 December 2004, after 11 years, 11 months, and 22 days of satisfactory service towards a Reserve retirement, he was honorably discharged from the MIANG with a Separation Program Designator Code of FTY, meaning “Resignation for own Convenience.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1POF reviewed this...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-00062
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The certification of service provided by the applicant reflects he was a member of the Air National Guard (ANG) from 12 Apr 80 through 11 Apr 87 _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: MI/TAG and MIANG/VC state the applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to validate his request for service credit for active duty from 25 Sep 81 through 29 Jun 84. ...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-03419
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After serving in the Army National Guard (ARNG) in the grade of E6, he was enlisted into a position with the MIANG that was an authorized technical sergeant (E6) position. The attached SME input states the applicant’s enlistment with the MIANG was correct and cites Air National Guard (ANG) 36-2002, Enlistment and Reenlistment in the ANG and as a Reserve of the Air Force, as the basis for their...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02882
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02882 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her active duty performed 15 April 2002 through 11 July 2002, in support of OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE, be added to her National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22, Report of Separation/Discharge and Record of Service; her...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-01486
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His commander and the Adjutant General (TAG) of the State of Indiana recommended him for promotion consideration to the grade of colonel by the Spring 2006 Air National Guard Colonel Review Board that convened on 1 March 2006. His promotion package for consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Spring 2006 Air National Guard Colonel Review Board was submitted to NGB but was not in turn...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03307
The letter asked that he call and he did so numerous times, but received no answer. He returned to duty with the ANG on 20 November 1984 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 1994. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While the applicant appreciates the ANG’s recommendation that his former grade be reinstated, he provides evidence he was within weeks or...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03015
His date of rank to first lieutenant was 20 May 2003. Applicant was eligible for the fiscal year 2006 (FY06) ANG Captain’s Promotion list. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of CAPTAIN, Air Force Reserve, with a Date of Rank (DOR) and a Promotion Effective Date (PED) of 20 May 2005 rather than 1...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01235
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01235 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be refunded the Family Servicemember’s Group Life Insurance (FSGLI) premiums deducted on 30 Jan 07 ($40.00), 20 Feb 07 ($40.00) and the debt deduction of $120.00. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00944
The decision of the Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) to non-retain him was in reprisal for his efforts to correct his civilian personnel records to reflect he was in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) instead of the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). In this case, the state of Michigan followed the appropriate procedural and program requirements during the selective retention process of the applicant. The stated basis of the Boards decision to non-retain the...