RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02768 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His 2007-2008 non-selections to the grade of master sergeant 
(MSgt/E-7) be set aside and he be reconsidered for promotion or 
retroactively promoted in a Federal Reserve capacity. 

 

2. He be granted retired back pay and allowances. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His former Air National Guard (ANG) unit commander reprised 
against him by non-recommending him for promotion. After being 
successful in reenlisting in the United States Air Force Reserve 
(USAFR), he subsequently transferred back to his former unit 
with sufficient retainability for promotion; however, he was 
still not recommended for promotion. 

 

He reenlisted in the USAFR for three years (as a Category-E 
Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) drilling for points 
only), and even though he was assigned to the USAFR at Warner-
Robins, he was attached to his former ANG unit; successfully 
retrained into the aeromedical specialist career field, and was 
eligible for promotion to MSgt under normal promotion 
consideration and the Deserving Airman Promotion Program (DAPP). 

 

He completed several tours of active duty in support of 
Operation NOBEL EAGLE and should have been promoted. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a brief from 
counsel; copies of DD Forms 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty, issued in conjunction with his 
separation from active duty on 10 Oct 02, 4 Jun 03, 10 Mar 05, 
30 Sep 07, 16 Mar 08, and 18 Jul 08 respectively and other 
supporting documents. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 


Based on information from the applicant’s submission, he 
completed the following tours of active duty: 

 

 03 Jun 02 – 10 Oct 02 

 03 Mar 03 – 04 Jun 03 

 01 Nov 04 – 10 Mar 05 

 23 Apr 07 – 30 Sep 07 

 06 Nov 07 – 16 Mar 08 

 17 Mar 08 – 18 Jul 08 

 

The applicant was mandatorily relieved as a member of the Air 
National Guard and Reserve of the Air Force, on 22 Jul 08, and 
placed on the USAF Retired List, at age 60, in the grade of 
technical sergeant. He was credited with 25 years, 3 months, 
and 6 days of service for basic pay, including 25 years and 
10 days of service for retirement. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

NGB/A1PS concurs with the Subject Matter Expert's (SME) opinion 
and recommends denial of relief stating they did not find the 
evidence substantiated an error. 

 

They provide the following analysis of the case: 

 

1) In 2004, the applicant was promoted to technical 
sergeant under the Deserving Airman Promotion Program 
(DAPP). This program is one of many tools squadron 
commanders could employ to effectively manage the force 
structure and composition of their units. One of the 
provisions of the DAPP is that it allows a commander to 
promote someone they deem worthy of promotion while still 
occupying a position in a lower grade, on a temporary 
basis. As highlighted in his application, the unit 
commander counseled him on his options with regard to his 
future service in the Air Force. Since he would be 
retirement eligible at the end of the period of enlistment 
that coincided with his promotion, the commander informed 
him, if he wanted to remain in the Air Force, he would have 
to find another unit with which to serve because he did not 
intend to retain him beyond his Expiration Term of Service 
(ETS). 

 

2) The applicant actively sought and obtained a 
position with the Air Force Reserve prior to his ETS in 
2005. He was subsequently attached to his former Guard 
unit in 2007 for the purposes of gaining credit for 
satisfactory service. During this period, he requested the 
opportunity to be considered for promotion but was not 
recommended by his commander. The commander’s reasons for 
not recommending him were she believed he did not have 
enough "effective leadership or management skills" and had 
no "proven ability to develop subordinate personnel." In 
accordance with the governing directive, The Enlisted Force 
Structure, "MSgts are transitioning from being technical 


experts and first line supervisors to leaders of 
operational competence skilled at merging subordinates' 
talents, skills, and resources with other teams' functions 
to most effectively accomplish the mission. This rank 
carries significantly increased responsibilities and 
requires a broad technical and managerial perspective.” It 
was her opinion that he did not display these qualities. 
However, since he was a member of the USAFR, the unit 
commander of the unit he was assigned to could have gone 
against her recommendation and promoted him. 

 

Since it is neither their desire nor function to second-guess a 
unit commander and the applicant did not provide any evidence of 
the reprisal he alleges, they found no injustice and do not 
recommend relief be granted. 

 

The complete NGB/A1PS evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In regard to his contention that he was reprised against, he 
notes: 

 

1) In 2007, he transferred back to his ANG unit and was no 
longer attached to the USAFR. His deployments in 2007 and 2008, 
originated with his ANG unit. Accordingly, his temporary duty 
(TDY) commanders were without authority to promote him. 

 

2) His unit commander took him back on the basis that he would 
deploy and not be at the unit. He was advised that a MSgt unit 
vacancy position was unfilled. However, even though he was 
being deployed in positions (security forces) that were not one 
of his Air Force specialties, he was not recommended for 
promotion based on his lack of demonstrated leadership and 
management skills “needed…[for] mission requirements” within the 
squadron. Consequently, none of his deployed duties were 
promotion-qualifying. 

 

In his initial request, he points out that according to Air 
Force instructions, ANG commanders are charged with minimum 
standards of due care to make “every effort to reassign 
qualified overage members to vacant positions…make every effort 
to fill vacant positions with qualified…personnel in the grade 
authorized.” The injustice is plain, his commander could not 
fairly complain that he failed to show leadership at the 7-skill 
level in his specialty, that the unit “needed,” and withheld 
promotion qualifying opportunities. 

 

The complete response from counsel, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 in regard to the 
applicant’s claim of reprisal and opportunity for promotion to 
MSgt. We note the applicant alleges whistleblower retaliation 
in violation of Title 10 USC 1034 from his superiors. However, 
based upon our own independent review of the available evidence, 
the applicant has not established the nonrecommendation for 
promotion by his superiors was an act of reprisal. The 
available evidence of record and the applicant’s own statements 
reflect the reasons the commander nonrecommended him for 
promotion to the grade of MSgt and we did not find the 
documentation provided sufficient to determine his claim of 
reprisal. We further note there is no evidence the applicant 
filed a complaint of reprisal with the IG nor did we find the 
applicant made a protected communication prior to the 
nonrecommendation for promotion. As noted by the applicant and 
counsel the TDY commanders were without authority to promote 
him. However, since he was a member of the Air Force Reserve, 
the squadron commander of the unit he was assigned to (not the 
TDY commander) could have recommended him for promotion. 
Additionally, we find no basis to overturn their decisions in 
this matter or to direct further investigation. We note that 
given the presumption of regularity in the operation of 
governmental affairs and in the absence of corroborative 
documentary evidence establishing impropriety, it is presumed 
that officers of the government, like other public officials, 
discharge their duties correctly, lawfully, and in good faith. 
The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to overcome 
this presumption. We further note in his declaration statement 
and response that the applicant believes he was not given 
sufficient credit for retirement and believes the record does 
not reflect his 25 years of satisfactory service. However, his 
retirement order reflects he was credited with over 25 years of 
service under Title 10 USC 12732 for basic pay. For a complete 
evaluation of the applicant’s retired pay, we recommend he 
contact the Air Reserve Personnel Center or the Defense 
Accounting and Finance Services. In view of the above and in 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon 
which to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

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 issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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-2011-02768 in Executive Session on 1 May 2012, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PS, dated 4 Oct 11, w/atch. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Counsel, dated 28 Nov 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair