RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02538
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Date of Rank (DOR) be changed from 17 Mar 10 to 14 Dec 09.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to a chain of mistakes and failure to process his promotion
paperwork in a timely manner, he was denied the appropriate DOR
of 14 Dec 09. The paperwork was either mistakenly held and/or
misplaced at the State headquarters level. By the time his unit
completed the order, four months had passed since the promotion
board convened. As a result, his DOR was created as 17 Mar 10.
Unfortunately, he was not the only person impacted by this action
(three others will be submitting similar requests).
When enlisted promotions in the Air National Guard are approved a
promotion order is written using the promotion board date as the
DOR. After further research, he found there were several issues
at the State level where they did not move promotion packages
forward. Because of their confusion on the new promotion
process, multiple inquiries were made to find and push the
packages through in order to complete them. He would like his
DOR be adjusted to correct this injustice. He is not interested
in receiving retroactive pay; however, he wants the correction to
his Special Order to be accomplished in his permanent record.
In support of his request, the applicant provides a letter of
support, excerpts from his promotion package, and a copy of his
Special Order.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate office of
the Air Force which are at Exhibit B and C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1POE recommends denial. Contrary to the applicants
assertion that his DOR should have been the same date the board
convened, ANGI 36-2505, Promotion of Airmen, paragraph 1.6.2.1
states, Promotions are effective the date of the promotion order
or AFIMT 2096 and will not be retroactively granted. The
applicant cites administrative errors as the cause for the
delay, but there is no information provided to validate the
source or cause of the aforementioned errors. Additionally,
there is a verification of eligibility process that must be
completed before the promotion order can be published for
personnel in Title 10 status, which is different from the process
for personnel in Title 32 status. As such, there is no way the
promotion order would have been published directly after the
board convened.
The complete NGB/A1POE evaluation is at Exhibit B.
NGB/A1PS recommends denial. A1PS states that they concur with
the Subject Matter Experts (SME) advisory.
The complete A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 26 Aug 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 timely filed.
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 National Guard Bureau offices 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 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-2011-02538 in Executive Session on 1 Nov 11 and 9 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 13 May 11, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 4 Aug 11.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 18 Aug 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Aug 1.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04325
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04325 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Date of Rank (DOR), of his promotion to Major, O-4, be changed from 13 October 2012, to 2 March 2012. He subsequently met another promotion board on 13 October 2013. He was selected and processed for promotion on a later list and was promoted...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01596
On 10 Dec 10, NGB/A1PS informed the applicant that he had not exhausted the administrative remedies regarding his application for correction of his military records. 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04184
A1POE states, in accordance with the applicants point credit summary, he did not participate in enough UTA days from his initial enlistment date of 20 Sep 2008 to the date of the erroneous discharge, on 1 Aug 2010. ________________________________________________________________ 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;...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00038
In support of her appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement, a copy of her NCOA Certificate of Completion, medical documentation reflecting surgery admission, a Fitness Monitor letter certifying fitness compliance, a letter of support from her commanders, electronic communication concerning National Guard Bureau guidance, and excerpts from the unit manning document. In addition, the applicant has failed to provide documentation showing she was the sole occupant of a master...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03196
If the promotion recommendation had been received in a timely manner her name would have been submitted to the Aug 12, Position Vacancy List approved by Secretary of Defense on 5 Nov 12. The applicant was originally boarded for promotion on 14 Jul 12; however, her promotion was not submitted to NGB/A1PO in a timely manner due to an administrative error. If NGB/A1PO had received the original promotion request, they would have promoted the applicant with a DOR of 14 Jul 12 and a Promotion...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2010 02758
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served honorably for 2 years in the Air National Guard (ANG). The NGB/A1PS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 27 Aug 10 for review and comment within 30 days. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03830
Thereafter, the 109th Force Support Squadron (109th FSS) Commander demoted the applicant to staff sergeant with an effective date and date of rank of 22 Jan 10. After a review of the information provided and the additional information provided by her unit, A1POE was not able to find sufficient evidence to determine she was not given due process. The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04604
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary (OPR) and is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PO recommends granting the applicants request to change his Date of Appointment (DOA) in the Air National Guard from 7 May 10 to 30 Sep 09; however, if the BCMR approves, his Total Years Service Date (TYSD); Total Federal Commissioned...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03610
This time enclosed was a NGB 22, stating that he was discharged with 5 years and 11 days of service and that he was eligible for reenlistment into the Armed Forces. After reviewing the applicants discharge notification package, dated 22 Mar 06, it was validated that the member was recommended for discharge for failing to maintain contact with the unit to schedule a date to attend BMT or attend Unit Training Assembly (UTA) weekends, which constituted substandard performance on the...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01133
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 17 December 2010, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit C). The applicants contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the...