RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02472
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her promotion to technical sergeant (E-6) be reinstated with an effective date of 1 Mar 10.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her deputy commander did not have the authority to withhold her promotion to technical sergeant because she was not on G-series orders. She believes the commander did not have the authority to authorize her stripe to be red lined since it was not properly withheld the first time; a demotion order should have been accomplished instead. The 72 ABW/IG and the 72 ABW/ADSC confirmed these findings.
In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of the promotion withhold memorandums.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Dec 03.
Nonrecommending, Deferring, and Withholding Promotions: IAW AFI 36-2502, para 4.2, the action may be initiated and approved by the unit commander for Airman in the grades AB - TSgt. Unit Commanders must inform airmen of adverse actions in writing or verbally before promotion effective date. The notification memorandum must include reasons, dates, occurrences, and duration of the action.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to technical sergeant; however, her promotion was placed in withhold on 24 Feb 10 due to her being under military/civil investigation. DPSOE notes the applicants contention that the withhold action was not accomplished by the unit commander per the governing AFI; however, her commander explains in her 21 Apr 10 memorandum that an admin error occurred where someone who was not on G-series orders signed the withhold action. The commander also explains that she was fully aware of and approved the withhold action. Therefore, since the commander approved the action and the applicants promotion was still in withhold status; the commander officially nonrecommended her for promotion making the demotion action unnecessary. At that point, the tentative promotion was merely removed.
The DPSOE complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded by reiterating her original contentions; however, she states that Lt Col F is a personnelist who is extremely knowledgeable of the promotion AFI. Lt Col F should have known the commander must be on G-series orders in order to withhold a promotion. She was not notified by the commander either in writing or verbally regarding her stripe being withheld. The 72 FSS/FSMPM told her the group had to allow her to pin-on her and then accomplish a demotion order. The governing AFI states that withholding action is taken after promotion selection but before the effective date of promotion. Therefore, her stripe was not withheld by a commander before the promotion date and is not retroactive. She states the reason she received a letter of reprimand with an unfavorable information file; a referral evaluation, and no decorations was due to obtaining a Common Access Card (CAC) when she was not authorized to do so. However, she believes her chain of command mislead her by allowing other members of the unit to obtain a CAC 30 days prior to a promotion to prevent them from driving back from a geographically-separated unit and her wing commander allowed the entire base to obtain a CAC early in the month of April so they did not have to go to the Military Personnel Flight during an exercise.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
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 error or injustice. After a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we believe that based on a past practice by the Military Personnel Flight, the applicant was led to believe that attaining a new ID card a few days early would not be a problem. In this regard, as noted by a former senior NCO assigned to the applicants unit who is now serving as a first sergeant, members who were promoted on 1 Nov 09 were issued new ID cards 3-4 days prior to the actual promotion effective date to alleviate possible setbacks during an upcoming Operational Readiness Inspection. Therefore, we believe that reasonable doubt exists as to whether or not withholding her promotion to technical sergeant was excessively harsh in this case. Accordingly, we believe the benefit of doubt in this matter should be resolved in her favor and that it would be an injustice for the applicant to continue to suffer the adverse impacts of withholding her promotion. Therefore, we recommend that the records be corrected as 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 technical sergeant (E-6) effective and with a date of rank of 1 March 2010.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02472 in Executive Session on 6 Jan 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2010-02472 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 25 Aug 10.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 10.
Exhibit D. letter, Applicant, dated 17 Sep 10.
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00350
According to the 99 ABW Commanders letter dated 4 Dec 13, she was issued a written no-contact order on 8 Feb 13 by the First Sergeant to stay away from another member of the 99 LRS per a request from Security Forces investigators because the applicant was discussing the open investigation with the said person. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 28 Jul 14, copies of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03246
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/JA also recommends denial of the applicant’s request. The applicant opines that since the withholding was a discretionary action, he believes it appropriate to discuss the necessity of the action taken by his commander in light of his exemplary record up to the time the action was taken. He states the discretionary action was not required by the circumstances.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02566
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02566 COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The 14th Air Force Commander responded that after a thorough review of his complaint, she found his commander committed no wrongs under Article 138; therefore, his request for redress was denied. The complete AFLOA/JAJM...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02847
In a letter dated 2 June 2015, SAF/MRBR provided the applicant an opportunity to request that her case be administratively closed until such time as her case is resolved through the appropriate IG authority and requested she respond within 30 days (Exhibit G). After considering the applicants appeal, several character statements and the Staff Judge Advocates legal review, the demotion authority approved the demotion action on 24 February 2014. As such, an applicant must first exhaust all...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03835
The applicant failed to complete the required mandatory PME or receive an approved waiver prior to his 28 Jul 12 retirement. Airmen with approved waivers must attend PME, in the higher grade, within 179 days of their effective promotion date, or as soon as they are available without impacting the mission. The DD Form 214 will reflect the active duty grade the member held at time of separation/retirement and the retirement order will reflect the rank as "highest grade held on active...
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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-00494
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00494 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His demotions to staff sergeant (SSgt) and technical sergeant (TSgt) be removed from his record and his rank be restored to master sergeant with an effective date of 1 Oct 07. DPSOE noted there is no evidence of an error or an injustice in 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-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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-03122
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the applicant’s request to correct her rank on her DD Form 214 be denied. Based on the above finding, and in the absence of evidence of a formal military investigation, we also believe her records should be corrected to show that she was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant effective and with a date of rank of 1 June 2004. Therefore, we recommend her records be corrected to...