Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03850
Original file (BC-2010-03850.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03850 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. He be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). 

 

2. His Date of Rank (DOR) be adjusted and he receive back pay. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His promotion has been unjustly held up. In Dec 09, he was 
informed that he was promoted and that his name would soon show 
up on a promotion roster. When another unit member was promoted 
before him, he began questioning what was going on. He and five 
other unit members were not given credit for one drill. He spoke 
with his supervisor, the orderly room, and a senior Air Reserve 
Technician, who told him the issue was being worked out through 
the command finance department. In the end, he was not given 
credit for the drill. His chain of command keeps telling him it 
is just a matter of time for the list to come out; however, he 
still has not been promoted. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides printouts from 
the virtual Military Personnel Flight (vMPF). 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve (AFR) 
in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5). 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these 
facts in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 


 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/A1K recommends denial. A1K states the applicant was asked 
to provide substantiating supporting documentation; however, he 
did not have anything other than what had already been provided. 
A1K notes that in the Reserve, enlisted members are promoted IAW 
AFPD 36-25 and AFR Promotion Policy, which means he needed to be 
recommended by the assigned supervisor and approved by the 
promotion authority (commander). The applicant did not provide 
any supporting documentation that proves his DOR and promotion 
effective date (PED) should be adjusted. 

 

The AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 4 Mar 11 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 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 error or injustice. 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 responsibility and adopt its 
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 in this application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2010-03850 in Executive Session on 19 Jul 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 3 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Mar 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00301

    Original file (BC-2012-00301.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00301 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her promotion effective date (PED) to the grade of airman (E-2) be changed to 21 Mar 11. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05059

    Original file (BC-2012-05059.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She had a break in service from 4 Nov 10 until 14 Jan 11, at which time she reenlisted in the Reserve. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Therefore, the applicant’s correct...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03172

    Original file (BC-2011-03172.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Thus, as a matter of record, the applicant’s DIERF cannot be prior to the date that he accepted the Oath of Office, i.e., the member is not a Reserve officer until such time as the Oath of Office is executed. 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 responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02002

    Original file (BC-2012-02002.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequently, it was determined the former content of AFI 2503, Administrative Demotion of Airman, and AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, dated 6 Aug 02, would continue to be used as the procedural guidance to implement the AFR Enlisted Demotion and Promotion Policy. We took note of the applicant’s arguments regarding the validity of the demotion instructions ,however, we agree with AFRC/A1K recommendation that the use of the former AFI 36-2503 and Air 36-2502 as the procedural guidance...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00566

    Original file (BC-2012-00566.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    His date of rank (DOR) and effective date of promotion is 1 December 2011. Upon completing the Article 15 punishment action, the applicant became eligible for promotion the following day to the rank of Airman, (E-2). Based on documentation, (AF Form 3070A), provided, the request to adjust the applicant’s promotion eligibility date (PED) and Date of Rank (DOR) meets the basic requirements for correction of his promotion history to 23 June 2011 versus 1 July 2011, his requested date.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02423

    Original file (BC-2011-02423.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Furthermore, if the applicant had been granted career status while being assigned to the CMSgt position it would have meant that she could have remained at Scott AFB until 2019 when she becomes eligible for an active duty retirement. We note the applicant’s assertion that she was selected for the superintendent position and subsequently promoted to the grade of CMSgt and due to her selection for the superintendent position her date of separation should be changed to 28 Feb 14. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC 2009 00013

    Original file (BC 2009 00013.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded her records should be corrected to show she was promoted to technical sergeant (E-6). 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 failed to sustain her burden of proof of the existence of either an error or injustice. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05229

    Original file (BC-2012-05229.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05229 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-3) with a date of rank and promotion effective date of 22 Mar 12. The applicant would have been eligible for promotion to the grade of E-2 on 7 May 12, after completing Basic...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01457

    Original file (BC 2014 01457.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01457 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted a waiver for being twice deferred for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5) while on Active duty so he may transfer to the Air Force Reserve (AFR). Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice with regards to the applicant’s request for a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03171

    Original file (BC-2010-03171.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of his enlistment, he was advised that he would be enlisting as an E-3 (airman first class) under the Stripes for Unit Bonus Skills. 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 responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the...