RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01379
INDEX CODE: 131.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His promotion sequence number be reinstated and he be promoted to the grade
of master sergeant (E-7) with an effective date of 1 March 2008.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His commander gave him a memorandum that non-recommended him for promotion.
He states the memorandum did not contain the requisite reasons, dates,
occurrences, and duration of the action in accordance with AFI 36-2502,
paragraph 3.2.1. The reason for non-recommendation is unjust in that such
a severe action is not warranted for such a minor mistake. His command
felt they had to take action because they were being pressured by higher
levels of command and he was the chosen fall guy.
In support of his request, the applicant provided personal statements dated
14 March 2008 and 21 March 2008, 12 reference letters, an e-mail dated 9
March 2008, and a pass/fail chart.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of
technical sergeant (E-6).
On 25 February 2008, he was notified of his non-recommendation for
promotion to MSgt IAW AFI 36-2502 (Airman Promotion Program), Paragraph
3.2, Table 1.1, Rule 9. Under this rule he is ineligible for promotion,
cannot test, cannot be considered if already tested, and if currently
projected for promotion, the promotion is cancelled.
On 14 March 2008, he received an AF Form 3070A, Record of Non-Judicial
Punishment proceedings (AB thru TSGT), for violating the UCMJ, Article 107.
He did, on divers occasions, between on or about 1 September 2007 and on
or about 11 January 2008, with intent to deceive, sign an official record,
to wit; Air Force Recruiting Services Headquarters Form 42, CCT & PJ
Physical Ability & Stamina Test (PAST), which record was false in that he
signed certifying that he had administered the PAST to B---, which he had
not done, and was then known by him to be so false.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states that his commander was acting
within his authority when he non-recommended the applicant for promotion.
The administrative portion of the non-recommendation was accomplished
incorrectly; however, the incident which prompted the punishment still
occurred.
DPSOE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 13
June 2008 for review and comment 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 injustice warranting corrective action. Although
the notification memorandum was not prepared properly in accordance with
the governing instruction, it is our opinion that the errors contained
therein were administrative in nature, and in and of themselves, do not
invalidate the decision of his commander. The applicant contends that the
non-recommendation for promotion was too severe for the offense in that
similar offenses were committed throughout the Air Force which did not
result in punishments as severe. After our review of the evidence of
record and the documentation submitted in support of his appeal, we do not
find his assertions sufficiently persuasive in this matter. In this
respect, commanders are in the position to make the determination and have
the responsibility to ensure that only those that are ready to assume the
increased responsibilities of the next higher grade are promoted. We are
not persuaded by his argument that the decision of his commander was
inappropriate, that his commander abused his discretionary authority, or
that the non-recommendation for promotion was overly harsh. Therefore, 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. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
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 issues 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2008-
01379 in Executive Session on 29 July 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Panel Chair
Mr. Elwood C. Lewis III, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 April 2008, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 May 2008.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 June 2008.
JOSEPH D. YOUNT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01467
It was determined the applicants date of rank to senior airman was 16 July 2009, which, in itself, made him eligible for promotion consideration to staff sergeant for cycle 10E5. In this instance, the applicant requests retroactive promotion to E-6; however, he is not yet eligible for promotion consideration to E-6. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02013
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Through counsel applicant states she was issued an LOR for allegedly having an unprofessional relationship with another Airman, who was not in her chain of command or a member of her unit. In this case, the LOR dated 7 December 2006, was filed in the UIF. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-00200
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 February 2008 for review and response within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, the Board is not persuaded that the applicant should be promoted to the grade of private first class. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Feb 08.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01357
DPSOE states the first time the decoration in question (worth one point) would have been used in the promotion process was cycle 08E6 to the grade of TSgt. At the time of the DPSOE evaluation, the applicant had been considered and non-selected for promotion to TSgt three times (cycles 08E6, 09E6, and 10E6). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 04054
On 7 September 2007, he tested for promotion to the grade of CMSGT, promotion cycle 07E9, under his Control AFSC (CAFSC) at the time of 8T000. ______________________________________________________________ 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 selected for promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant during promotion cycle 07E9 in the Control Air Force Specialty Code of 8T000,...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03262
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 18 January 2008 for review and comment within 30 days. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The applicant be notified that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00431
He was told that he would receive an honorable discharge with full separation pay under HYT but the error with his promotion caused him to only receive half separation pay. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to be considered for promotion to the grade of TSgt indicating he was separated on 17 Dec 13 and ineligible in accordance with AFI 36- 2502, Airman Promotion Program Table 2.1. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02531
On 31 July 2007, the applicant retired in the grade of TSgt after serving 20 years and 6 months on active duty, _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. Furthermore, had the request for a waiver been approved, which would have been no more than a deferment requiring completion of PME within 179 days of pin-on, she would also have had to serve a two-year active duty service commitment in order to retire in that...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03407
JA states the applicant’s retainability was established by AFI 36-2131, upon accession onto active duty under the protections of sanctuary. If between 1 July 1996 to 21 September 1996 he served on active duty, he could retire in a higher grade under 10 U.S.C 8963. Although he did not specifically request retirement in the highest grade held while on active duty; we have been advised that it has been determined that he served satisfactorily in the grade of MSgt and is eligible to retire in...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02309
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02309 INDEX CODE: 110.03, 131.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt) effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 November 2002 and his High Year of Tenure (HYT) date be corrected to reflect March 2009...