RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00313
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her records be corrected to reflect she was promoted to the
grade of senior master sergeant (E-8), effective and with a date
of rank of 23 Dec 05, rather than 8 Jan 09.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was discriminated against when she was denied promotion to
senior master sergeant (E-8) and subsequently not permitted to
apply for a position for which she was the only qualified
candidate. Her contentions are validated in the Resolution
Agreement and Release of Claim regarding her Equal Opportunity
Complaint (RC-07-001-01).
In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of the
Resolution Agreement and Release of Claim and her senior master
sergeant (E-8) promotion order.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System
(MilPDS) indicates the applicant enlisted in the Nevada Air
National Guard on 22 Sep 86 and was progressively promoted to
the grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective and with a date of
rank of 6 Nov 99, prior to the matter under review.
On 11 May 94, the applicant was voluntarily ordered to active
duty under the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program.
In accordance with ANGI 36-101, The Active Guard/Reserve
Program, AGR members are reserve component members on full-time
duty to organize, administer, recruit, instruct, and train
members of the Guard and Reserve. Service in the AGR program is
credited as active service.
On 5 Feb 07, the applicant voluntarily resigned her AGR
position, reverting to her underlying traditional (part-time)
status as a member of the Nevada Air National Guard. She was
credited with 12 years, 8 months, and 24 days of total active
service.
Available documentation indicates the applicant filed a formal
discrimination complaint on 11 Feb 07 alleging discrimination
based on reprisal for filing a formal Equal Opportunity (EO)
complaint in 1996, and testifying in support of an EEO complaint
in 1998. She alleged that she was not selected for the position
of senior production controller or permitted to apply for the
position of communication and information officer because of
these activities. During the investigation, the applicant
alleged she was also the victim of gender-based discrimination.
The investigation was conducted in XXXXXXX, Nevada, from 18
through 20 Sep 07.
The Report of Investigation (ROI) indicates the applicant
demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, she was the
victim of discrimination based on reprisal when she was not
selected for the senior production controller position and she
was the victim of gender based-discrimination when she was not
provided a waiver so she could receive a promotion, while males
who were similarly situated received waivers and subsequent
promotions.
The investigator recommended the complaint be resolved through
the applicants return to the AGR program, promotion to senior
master sergeant (E-8), and assignment to a position providing
her a career path allowing her progression as her experience and
performance allow.
On 14 Nov 08, the applicant and the Nevada Military Department
executed a Resolution Agreement and Release of Claim documenting
the terms of their agreement in full settlement of the her
discrimination complaint. The agreement indicates the Nevada
Military Department will place her in an AGR position in the
Joint Force Headquarters; recommend her for promotion to the
grade of senior master sergeant (E-8), provided she is otherwise
qualified; and support her AFBCMR request for retroactive
promotion to a date as early as 23 Dec 05.
On 21 Nov 08, the applicant was voluntarily ordered to active
duty for five years under the AGR program, effective 12 Nov 08.
On 8 Jan 09, the applicant was promoted to the grade of senior
master sergeant (E-8).
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PS recommends denial, indicating the documentation
provided by the applicant does not support her request. Clearly
the intent of the Resolution Agreement and Release of Claim was
for her promotion in the future (emphasis added), provided she
met all the qualifications expected of any AGR being considered
for promotion. Additionally, AGR promotions to senior master
sergeant (E-8) and chief master sergeant (E-9) must be
accommodated within the states authorized AGR controlled grade
ceilings for those grades in accordance with ANGI 36-101.
Unfortunately, the documentation provided by the applicant is
not sufficient to determine when a control grade resource would
have become available to accommodate her promotion. Therefore,
a determination of when she would have been promoted cannot be
made.
A complete copy of the NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant takes issue with the argument the intent of the
agreement was her future promotion. The third term of the
agreement clearly states the agency agrees to support her claim
before the AFBCMR for retroactive promotion to a date as early
as 23 Dec 05.
A complete copy of the applicants response, including
attachments, is at Exhibit E.
By electronic mail, dated 25 May 10, the applicant provides
copies of the Report of Investigation of her discrimination
complaint, her letter of resignation from her AGR position, her
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty, and other records. A complete copy of the applicants
additional submission is at Exhibit F.
________________________________________________________________
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by
existing law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice warranting
corrective action. After a thorough review of the available
evidence, particularly the Investigative Report and Resolution
Agreement and Release of Claim related to the applicants EEO
complaint, it appears the applicant was the victim of
discrimination and reprisal when her leadership repeatedly and
deliberately denied her full and fair consideration for
advancement. Therefore, we believe it is in the interest of
justice to grant the requested relief and recommend her records
be corrected to the extent indicated below.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she was
promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8), Air
National Guard, effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of
23 Dec 05, rather than 8 Jan 09.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2009-00313 in Executive Session on 8 Jun 10, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 21 Jan 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Apr 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 28 Apr 10.
Exhibit F. Electronic Mail, Applicant,
dated 25 May 10, w/atchs.
Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03031
JA states that based on the facts presented in the NGB opinions, JA finds their responses to be legally sufficient and concurs with the recommendations to deny the applicant's requests for corrective action related to ACP payments, Board# V0611A, AGR separation from ANG Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) consideration, and TERA. Counsels complete response is at Exhibit N. _______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05678
Separation for non- retained members is required to be completed prior to 31 Dec of the year in which the retention board is convened in accordance with ANGI 36-2606, Selective Retention of Air National Guard Officer and Enlisted Personnel. TAG is the ultimate authority for any retention decision six months beyond 31 Dec. No other basis exists for this action and the ATAG was investigated and allegations were substantiated.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03217
He testified against his wing commander in an Inspector General (IG) investigation and believes he was reprised against when his commander demoted him for having an unprofessional relationship. The original non-judicial punishment (NJP) notification served by the wing commander violated his due process rights when he was pulled back and re-served the NJP based on information directly relating to the Commander-Directed Investigation (CDI). On 8 Oct 09, the NY TAG denied the AGR Removal for...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00685
On 3 Aug 10, the Vice Chief of Joint Staff signed an order amending the applicants separation from the ANG and transfer to the Air Force Reserve to reflect his discharge from the WYANG and as a Reserve of the Air Force effective 10 Oct 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, para 2.25.2, ANG Unique Separations. In addition, no one had the authority to discharge the applicant from the Reserve of the Air Force (See SAF/IG Report at Exhibit B). According to AFI 36-3209, the authority to...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2009-03964
As a result of her erroneous DOS, she was prematurely considered by the CY10 NGB STFM Board which directed her release from EAD, effective 27 Jan 10. The recommended active duty time required for a master sergeant (E-7) to be granted career status is at least eight years; however, the applicant had only attained three years of total active service at the time of her selection. Nonetheless, we believe the commander’s decision to establish the applicant’s DOS as 27 Jan 10 was reasonable in...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-05912
In addition, the Department of Defense Inspector General (IG DoD/MRI) concurred with the determination, approved the report, and substantiated the allegations (Exhibit B). We note that based on the Report of Investigation (ROI) from the SAF/IG the applicant was the victim of reprisal under the Whistleblower Protection Act (10 USC 1034) by his former commander who denied his reenlistment and attendance at the Chief Executive Course (CEC). Other than the comments in the ROI, the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001057380C070420
The applicant requests, in effect, that her discharge from active duty in the Army National Guard (ARNG) be voided and that she be given constructive credit for 20 years of active duty military service, with all back pay, allowances, benefits and emoluments. Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant’s records should be corrected to show that she was neither separated from active duty or released from the AGR program on 30 April 1993, nor discharged from the ARNG and USAR on 13 June...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03281
As the OPR’s were not completed in accordance with governing Instructions and were not timely, she was forced to meet a mandatory promotion board instead of qualifying for a Position Vacancy (PV) promotion to major. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states the ANG advisory cites a paragraph from ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2504, Federal Recognition Of Promotion In The Air National Guard And As A Reserve Of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00997
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00997 INDEX CODE: 110.03 COUNSEL: ZIMMERMAN & LAVIN HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be reinstated in the Texas Air National Guard (TXANG) Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program, effective 15 April 2002, with all pay that was lost (less her subsequent earnings as a civil service technician) or in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00803
The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANTS REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was denied promotion because the MS ANG reneged on his assignment orders without advising him just weeks after arriving on station. The resource to promote him to the grade of SMSgt as reflected on his orders was taken away when another member was placed in his position. ...