RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04345
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His pay grade be changed to technical sergeant (TSgt/E-6),
effective 8 Feb 99, with all back pay and allowances.
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was discriminated against by a senior officer who was in
charge of the personnel department while serving at an Air
National Guard (ANG) base in Texas. He notes the senior officer
was fired due to sexual harassment. His former commander had
submitted him for promotion to the grade of E6.
The applicant did not submit any documentation to support his
appeal.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicants military records, are contained in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.
________________________________________________________________
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.
Normally, those matters would be investigated and addressed by
an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint and they are not
in a position to address those claims. 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 documentation to support his claim. In fact the
applicants record reveals that he submitted an application for
transfer to the Retired Reserve, on 29 Jan 99, to be effective,
8 Feb 99, as a staff sergeant (SSgt/E-5). His retirement
request was signed by him and his commander whom he states had
recommended for him for promotion.
The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 27 May 11 for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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
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 in this
application.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material 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-2010-04345 in Executive Session on 2 August 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Nov 10.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 2 Mar 11, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00313
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 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. A complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04888
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: NGB/A1P recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The mere fact that a member meets all the eligibility criteria for promotion does not automatically guarantee promotion to the next higher grade; the immediate commander must first recommend the airman...
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. ...
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 | CY1999 | BC-1992-02810
A complete copy of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Memorandum and Order, is attached at Exhibit H. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director, Personnel and Training, Air National Guard (ANG/DP), reviewed this application and states the administrative record reviewed and referenced by the court includes Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) and a Training Report (TR) that were available to the Board at the time the Board considered applicant’s requests. Upon carefully...
A complete copy of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Memorandum and Order, is attached at Exhibit H. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director, Personnel and Training, Air National Guard (ANG/DP), reviewed this application and states the administrative record reviewed and referenced by the court includes Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) and a Training Report (TR) that were available to the Board at the time the Board considered applicant’s requests. Upon carefully...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit K. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and states that although the applicant has provided support from the senior rater, she provide no support from the MLR president to warrant upgrading the PRF. After reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s records are either in error or unjust. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03828
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03828 INDEX CODE: 111.02 APPLICANT COUNSEL: None SSN HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 26 July 2000 through 11 June 2001 and all accompanying attachments be declared void and he be considered for promotion by a special selection board (SSB). ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02029
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1POP does not make a recommendation and defers to the Board to make a determination regarding the applicant’s date of rank. However, they point out that a state has the authority to have a policy for promotion of their officers who would become overgrade upon promotion. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we find the evidence of record insufficient to...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00565
Furthermore, the EOT representative’s failure to interview the applicant during the informal investigation did not prejudice the applicant’s rights because he was interviewed during the formal investigation. f. Interviewing him in the formal investigation does not negate the fact that the informal process was not done correctly. However, since he was interviewed during the formal investigation, we do not believe the failure to interview him during the informal investigation taints the...