RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00575 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His date of rank to the grade of captain be corrected to reflect 
1 October 2006 rather than 24 January 2007. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His command recommended him for promotion in 2006 and he was 
eligible for promotion. However, all of the 0-3 promotion 
packages sat on the desk of the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) 
waiting for approval. It seems unfair to effectively punish a 
person by postponing their promotion well over a year. He has 
maintained the same standards and deployments as active duty 
judge advocate generals (JAGs). 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. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provided email 
communiqué and a note from his wing commander. 

 

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit 
A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserves in 
the grade of captain. 

 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from 
the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter 
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force (Exhibit B). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

NGB/A1POP recommends denial. A1POP states that on 18 January 
2005, the applicant was appointed in the grade of first 
lieutenant. 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. The applicant met these requirements on 18 January 
2006. The first promotion list that he could be placed on after 
this date was the Fiscal Year 2007 (FY07) Air National Guard 
(ANG) Line and Nonline Captain Promotion List. 

 

The list was approved by the Secretary of Defense on 23 January 
2007 and was publicly released on 24 January 2007. Normally, the 
FY07 list would have been approved before 1 October 2006, but 
there was a hold up within SAF offices which delayed the 
approval. Officers selected on this list were unable to have a 
DOR earlier than 24 January 2007 in accordance with U.S.C. Title 
10. 

 

The applicant's promotion was processed correctly and since there 
was no legal relief awarded, his promotion dates are correct. 

 

The complete A1POP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B. 

 

NGB/A1PS concurs with the recommendation from NGB/A1POP. 

 

The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states the advisory 
indicates that his AFSC needs to meet a two year time-in-grade 
requirement before eligible for promotion. This assertion is 
completely wrong. AFI 36-2005 allows for JAGs to receive one 
year of creditable service for each year of law school for a 
maximum of three years. This makes sense as law school is 
generally three years in length. Also, AFI 51-1001 states, 
"Selectees enter active duty as a first lieutenant and are 
eligible for promotion after six months of active duty." 

 

The AFI clearly indicates that JAGs are to be given up to three 
years of credit for law school. It is clear that active duty 
JAGs are promoted to captain after six months. Apparently, there 
is a Guard instruction that requires one year before promotion. 

 

He has tremendously enjoyed his career in the Air Force. He has 
enjoyed meeting and exceeding the requirements to be a JAG. 
Indeed, the Guard is now considered an operations reserve, no 
longer a strategic reserve. He has been held to the same 
stringent standards that all Air Force JAGs are held to; 
therefore, it seems equitable to hold the Air Force to the same 
requirement. It seems only equitable that he would also be given 


credit for law school, like every other JAG, and be promoted on 
time. 

 

The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 was appropriately established in compliance 
with Air Force instructions and Title 10 U.S.C. While the 
statute does allow adjustment of the DOR of an officer if, due to 
unusual circumstances, the appointment is delayed from the date 
on which it would otherwise have been made, we are not persuaded 
by the evidence provided that the delay in appointment was due to 
unusual circumstances. Rather, it appears to be a result of the 
normal administrative actions required before the list could be 
finally approved by the Secretary of Defense. With regard to the 
applicant’s contention that he was not correctly awarded 
constructive service credit, it appears the applicant has been 
awarded the appropriate constructive service credit for the time 
he spent in law school in accordance with Air National Guard 
governing instructions and we find no error in the calculation of 
his service credit. In addition, we are not persuaded by his 
assertions that he is entitled to any additional service credit. 
Accordingly, in the absence of evidence showing the applicant was 
treated differently from others similarly situated, or that his 
DOR was established contrary to the provisions of the governing 
policy based on the controlling statue, we find no compelling 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2009-00575 in Executive Session on 23 September 2009, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2009-00575 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 February 2009, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POP, dated 27 February 2009, w/atch. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 9 March 2009. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 March 2009. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 7 April 2009, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair