Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04582
Original file (BC-2010-04582.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04582 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her pay grade be restored to technical sergeant (E-6). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

She asked for help; however, people were reluctant to get 
involved. She claims she was falsely accused for not 
participating in training. She provides 20 pages of her Military 
Leave and Earning Statements (LES) that show she earned 113 
retirement points in 1994-1995 timeframe. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her 
involuntary demotion order, a copy of NRPCC 1070/124, Naval 
Reserve Personnel Center Annual Retirement Point Record, a copy 
of a letter from the Naval Reserve Force Commander, an excerpt 
from AFI 36-2503-, Administrative Demotion of Airmen, and copies 
of her LES. 

 

Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) the 
applicant has 21 years of satisfactory service and is waiting 
retirement in the grade of airman first class (E-3). H 

 

Reserve Order A-287, dated 12 Jul 95, reflects that she was 
involuntarily demoted from technical sergeant (E-6) to staff 
sergeant (E-5). However, her record is absent on further 
demotion actions. class. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/A1K recommends denial. A1K states that under the Air Force 
Reserve Demotion Policy, airmen are afforded the opportunity to 


appeal demotions. A1K attempted to obtain demotion appeal 
documentation in support of her request; however, the applicant 
was unavailable for questioning. 

 

The AFRC/A1K complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit 
B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF 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, 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-2010-04582 in Executive Session on 12 Oct 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2010-04582 
was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 21 May 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 May 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00436

    Original file (BC-2011-00436.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00436 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her rank of master sergeant (E-7) be reinstated with her original date of rank of 1 January 2008. The discharge board that convened on 27 January 2011 found the applicant did not wrongfully use marijuana and recommended she be retained in the Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02811

    Original file (BC 2014 02811.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander was told that since the applicant was a ten year First Sergeant who did not hold a 9- skill level she could not remain a CMSgt and that there was not a method for First Sergeants to be promoted to CMSgt. A complete copy of the rebuttal is at Exhibit F. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicantÂ’s MILPDS record was reviewed and noted as follows: 16 Jan 03, member last held AFSC 2A671; 17 Jan 03, member was selected into a SDI 8F000 (First Sergeant); 1 Mar 11,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01452

    Original file (BC-2010-01452.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-01452 INDEX CODE: A94.05/06 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: While it is not readily apparent, it appears the applicant is requesting that his General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge be upgraded to honorable and his former rank of technical sergeant (E-6) be restored. On...

  • 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-02152

    Original file (BC-2011-02152.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02152 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be transferred to the Retired Reserve awaiting retired pay at age 60 rather than discharged. The applicant has not provided any documentation to support her claim that she should not have been discharged from the AFR, i.e., application for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04564

    Original file (BC-2010-04564.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Air Force Reserve enlisted members are recommended for promotion by the assigned supervisor and approved by the promotion authority. As for her request related to retirement, Air Force Reserve members must have 20 years of satisfactory service or have 15 but less than 20 years...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03238

    Original file (BC-2011-03238.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his requests, the applicant provides a personal statement, copies of the Memorandum for Non-recommendation for Promotion, his 2 Nov 08 PT score, Member Utilization Questionnaire, email communiques, EPP Eligibility Rosters, DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, a Point Credit History Summary, and various other documents associated with his request. The relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02744

    Original file (BC 2014 02744.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02744 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: a. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. We...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04813

    Original file (BC 2013 04813.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) enlisted promotion and demotion policy was folded into an active duty Air Force publication AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, 31 December 2009. Air Force Reserve enlisted members are promoted to chief master sergeant in accordance with AFPD 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotions and Air Force Reserve Enlisted Promotion Policy. Based on this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04084

    Original file (BC 2013 04084.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of her request, the applicant submits copies of her AF IMT 348, Line of Duty Determination, report of medical evaluation letter dated 29 November 2005, statements of earned civilian income, and email correspondence pertaining to her INCAP pay application. The Air Force office of primary responsibility reviewed her request and determined that she had not exhausted her administrative remedies for requesting incapacitation pay in accordance with AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for...