Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01133
Original file (BC-2010-01133.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01133 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, be amended to reflect the grade of chief master sergeant 
(CMSgt) rather than senior master sergeant (SMSgt). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

While reviewing burial benefits he discovered his grade was 
incorrect on his separation documents. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides documents 
extracted from his military personnel records. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Documents provided by the applicant reflect he was transferred to 
the Retired Reserve on 30 October 1993 in the grade of SMSgt 
effective and with a date of rank of 1 November 1991. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1POE recommends denial. A1POE states the applicant provides 
what appears to be a brevet promotion certificate awarding him 
the “honorary rank” of chief master sergeant on the California 
National Guard Retired List. The authority for such promotions 
usually lies within the state military law and is not recognized 
by the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserves. His NGB Form 22 
and Special Order AD-860 both list his grade as SMSgt; his 
retirement order dated 11 January 2002 also shows the grade of 
SMSgt. 

 

A1PS concurs with NGB/A1POE’s advisory. 

 

The A1POE and A1PS complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 


 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 17 December 2010, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was 
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit C). 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 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 an error or injustice. The 
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with 
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of 
primary responsibility and adopt their 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 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-2010-01133 in Executive Session on 19 January 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-01133 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 February 2010, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letters, NGB/A1POE and NGB/A1PS, dated 2 December 

 2010 and 3 December 2010. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 December 2010. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00038

    Original file (BC-2010-00038.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of her NCOA Certificate of Completion, medical documentation reflecting surgery admission, a Fitness Monitor letter certifying fitness compliance, a letter of support from her commanders, electronic communication concerning National Guard Bureau guidance, and excerpts from the unit manning document. In addition, the applicant has failed to provide documentation showing she was the sole occupant of a master...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00238

    Original file (BC-2009-00238.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The security manager position is a CMSgt position in the SFS. A1PS’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit B. NGB/A4RDT recommends the Board grant the applicant’s request for reimbursement for his personally procured move (PPM). Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2009-00238 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00803

    Original file (BC-2013-00803.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S 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. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04184

    Original file (BC-2011-04184.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A1POE states, in accordance with the applicant’s point credit summary, he did not participate in enough UTA days from his initial enlistment date of 20 Sep 2008 to the date of the erroneous discharge, on 1 Aug 2010. ________________________________________________________________ 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;...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04104

    Original file (BC-2010-04104.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force which is at Exhibit B. As of this date, this office has received no response (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02258

    Original file (BC-2010-02258.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His promotion to the grade of senior airman (E-4) be adjusted to an effective date of 1 February 2009. AFI 10-201 refers the applicant’s career field to the “Prime Ribs Managers Guide.” The mission capabilities statement that was provided with the applicant’s request is from the guide and states “Specific grades denote SORTS critical positions.” The listing only has two positions that have specific grades; both of them are 7-level AFSCs. We took notice of the applicant's complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01044

    Original file (BC-2009-01044.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His retired pay is based on 2,680 retirement points and over 33 years of service for basic pay in the grade of technical sergeant. The complete DPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and provided copies of documents associated with the events cited in his appeal. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 01044

    Original file (BC 2009 01044.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His retired pay is based on 2,680 retirement points and over 33 years of service for basic pay in the grade of technical sergeant. The complete DPP evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and provided copies of documents associated with the events cited in his appeal. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04345

    Original file (BC-2010-04345.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1POE recommends denial, stating, in part, other than his own claim that he was discriminated against, saying that the commander, “ was finally fired for sexual harassment,” he provides no information concerning his discrimination claim. In his request, the applicant also states that his commander submitted paperwork for his promotion but the member does not state when that was or provide any...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00813

    Original file (BC-2010-00813.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00813 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to give him Whistleblower protection; show his graduation from Air War College (AWC); his reinstatement to the New York Air National Guard (NYANG) or comparable posting; promotion to the grade of colonel (O-6) backdated to the...