RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02423 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her date of separation (DOS) be changed from 30 Apr 12 to 
28 Feb 14. 

 

2. She be reinstated to the grade of chief master sergeant and 
reinstated to her previous position as Detachment 2 
Superintendent. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her DOS should be extended based on her current assignment 
selection effective date of 15 Feb 10. 

 

1. She applied, interviewed, and was selected for the 
superintendent position at HQ RMG/Det 2, Scott AFB, IL, effective 
15 Feb 10. She was subsequently promoted to the grade of chief 
master sergeant (CMSgt) effect 1 Aug 10. Her current DOS of 
30 Apr 12 did not allow her to fulfill the 2-year contract for 
time in grade (TIG) with regard to her reserve service 
commitment. 

 

2. This is her second Active Guard and Reserve (AGR) assignment 
within the last 5 years. The superintendent position 
advertisement was a 4-year active duty tour. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her 
assignment selection and other pertinent information with regard 
to her assignment. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving on an Active Guard and Reserve 
(AGR) tour as the Base Individual Mobilization Augmentee 
Administrator (BIMAA) at Scott AFB, IL, in the grade of senior 
master sergeant (E-8). 

 


The applicant was promoted to the grade of chief master sergeant 
(E-9) 1 Aug 10; however, she took a voluntary demotion in order 
to continue serving in the AGR Program. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFRC/A1K recommends denial. The Readiness Management Group 
Commander (RMG/CC), the RMG Detachment 2 Program Manager, and the 
AFRC/A1A former superintendent thoroughly explained expectations 
associated with the applicant’s selection into her current 
position. In this regard, the main expectation was that if she 
chose to accept the CMSgt position, she would need to apply for 
and be selected for an assignment that was somewhere other than 
Scott AFB in order to remain in the AGR program. The specific 
reason for this decision was because the applicant had been 
assigned to Scott AFB for the last 12 years. The RMG leadership 
felt the need to increase her breadth of experience before being 
granted career AGR status. 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. 

 

Additionally, Reserve Service Commitments (RSCs) can be served in 
any category of the Selected Reserves; therefore, she did not 
require an extension to her DOS as an AGR, but was required to 
serve 2-years from the date of rank to CMSgt. 

 

The complete AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant responded by making the following key contentions: 

 

 a. All AGR RMG superintendent positions have been and are 
still advertised and served out as 4-year tours. 

 

 b. Although highly recommended by her supervisor, in Sep 09, 
she was denied career status by the AGR Assignment Review Board 
(ARB). 

 

 c. There are a few superintendents within the RMG or the AGR 
program who have served 6 plus years in the same CMSgt position 
without moving and there are a couple of new selects who will be 
able to serve more years in their current positions/locations 
than she would have if retained as the Det 2 Superintendent. 

 


 d. She has applied for 12 CMSgt positions and 3 SMSgt 
positions since Mar 11; however, she was only interviewed for 4 
of the CMSgt positions and 1 of the SMSgt positions. 

 

 e. In an effort to obtain stability of employment and to 
ensure that her career did not end abruptly, she contacted 
AFRC/A1A to get a better understanding of what her options were. 
She then applied for a SMSgt position as the Base Individual 
Mobilization Augmentee Administrator (BIMAA) at Scott AFB for 
which she was selected and accepted the new assignment. 

 

 f. Her DOS has been adjusted to Oct 15 and although her 
personnel skills are above reproach, she fears that this 
situation may have stifled future opportunities for advancement. 

 

The applicant’s 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. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a 
thorough review of the available evidence, we are not persuaded 
that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. 
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. According 
to AFRC/A1K, the applicant understood that if she chose to accept 
the CMSgt position, she would need to apply for and be selected 
for an assignment that was somewhere other than Scott AFB in 
order to remain in the AGR program. Leadership felt the need to 
increase her breadth of experience before granting career AGR 
status. The evidence of record indicates her leadership followed 
established procedures and policies. Therefore, in the absence 
of evidence to the contrary, we concur with the comments provided 
by the AFRC/A1K and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
decision in this case. In view of the above, we have no basis on 
which to favorably consider the applicant’s request. 

 

4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issues involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 


_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-02423 in Executive Session on 23 Feb 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jun 11, w/atchs. 

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

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Jan 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair