RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03238
			COUNSEL:  NONE
		 	HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  He be retroactively promoted to the grade of technical 
sergeant.

2.  He be awarded the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (AFGCM). 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The applicant states that he did not receive due process 
regarding his promotion to the grade of technical sergeant under 
the Extended Promotion Program (EPP).  

The reason he was denied promotion was his Personnel Information 
File (PIF) did not contain a copy of his 2 Nov 08 Physical 
Training (PT) test.

The statement on his non-recommendation for promotion memorandum 
“member is not current on his physical fitness requirement” is 
not accurate.  He did have a valid PT test which he completed on 
2 Nov 08, and scored 77.25 (Good).  A hard copy of the test was 
never placed in his PIF; however, his score was recorded in the 
Air Force Fitness Management System (AFFMS).  

On 2 May 09, he was instructed to participate in a squadron PT 
test.  He advised his monitor that he did not feel well enough 
to participate and reported to the Medical Squadron.  He was 
placed on a Duty Limiting Condition Report, and was restricted 
to light duty and told to avoid all exercise including fitness 
testing.  He was also restricted from carrying a weapon until 
cleared medically.  On 7 Jun 09, he was cleared for full fitness 
testing and to carry a weapon.

In Oct 09, he took his PT test and scored 71.95, the first time 
in his military career that he did not successfully pass his PT 
test.  

AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, paragraph 
4.7.3., directs commanders to notify airmen nonselected for 
promotion, in writing, of the reasons for nonselection, this did 
not occur in his case.  He was never presented the non-
recommendation for promotion memorandum.

The applicant states that the Member Utilization Questionnaire, 
dated 20 Apr 10, is bias, and appears to indicate that his 
commander did not have accurate information as to his favorable 
service history and personal character.  The applicant provides 
copies of documents that he believes will contradict some of the 
statements on the questionnaire.  These statements collectively, 
has led him to believe that such misinformation and bias 
information formulated the “not recommended by Commander” 
determination.

His military, civilian, and academic accomplishments are 
noteworthy attributes and contradict the summarizations provided 
on the Member Utilization Questionnaire which otherwise indicate 
a negative bais.

In Feb 06, while serving on Title 32, Active Guard Reserve (AGR) 
duty, the AFGCM was discontinued, otherwise he would have been 
eligible.

He would like the Board to determine if he is eligible for the 
AFGCM for his AGR service from 1 Dec 04 through 21 Jul 08, while 
assigned to the New York Air National Guard.

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 applicant's complete submissions, with attachments, are at 
Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a 
date of rank and effective date of 20 Sep 00.

He retired in the grade of staff sergeant effective 13 Jun 10.  

The AFGCM is awarded to airmen for exemplary conduct during a 
three-year period of active military service, (or for a one-year 
period of service during a time of war).

The relevant facts pertaining to this application are described 
in the letters prepared by the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility which is included at Exhibit B and E.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be 
retroactively promoted to the grade of technical sergeant.  A1K 
states that based on the supporting documentation provided by 
the applicant, he was denied promotion by the commander because 
he did not have a current passing fitness test, which is within 
the promotion authority’s (commander’s) authority to do so.  The 
Command’s basis for a disapproval recommendation has been 
established.

Air Force Reserve members are promoted in accordance with Air 
Force Policy Directive 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotion 
and the Air Force Reserve Enlisted Promotion Policy, they must 
be recommended by the assigned supervisor and approved by the 
promotion authority.  It is solely at the discretion of the 
assigned supervisor/designee to recommend promotion to the 
promotion authority when an individual has met the requirements 
for promotion to the next higher grade.  Although the applicant 
presents handwritten scores to show he was current on his PT 
test at the time in question, documentation to support such a 
claim must be obtained from the official source, which is the 
AFFMS.  Summarily, an AFFMS printout which displays a current 
passing score, in and of itself, does not substantiate a 
promotion authority’s intent to promote a member.  

The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 10 Nov 11, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comments within 30 days (Exhibit 
C).

On 25 Nov 11, the applicant requested that his case be 
administratively closed.

On 8 Nov 12, the applicant provided rebuttal comments to the Air 
Force advisory opinion and his case was reopened.

The applicant states that AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program, 
paragraph 1.20.2.5., directs the Fitness Assessment Cell (FAC) 
to document fitness assessment scores on a hard copy score sheet 
and provide such to the member for personal record.  As such, 
his handwritten score sheet is compliant with the AFI and should 
be considered an official record.

On 3 Nov 08, he confirmed through the Air Force Portal that his 
scores were input.  Unfortunately, he never made a copy.

He attempted to locate his PT test scores; however, he was 
advised they are only kept on file for one year.

In referencing AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of 
Military Records, paragraph 4.5.3., it states “Formal rules of 
evidence do not apply, but the panel observes reasonable bounds 
of competency, relevancy, and materiality.”  His contention is 
that in the A1K letter dated 25 Oct 11, it holds that 
“documentation to support such a claim must be obtained from the 
official source…the AFFMS.”  However, as mentioned above, he 
believes the handwritten score sheet is compliant with the AFI 
and is sufficient under the preponderance of evidence.

Holding the rank of staff sergeant with 18 years of service 
draws a negative stigma.  As he has established in his initial 
claim, a lack of administrative due process and adverse bias 
against him existed during the brief time he was assigned to the 
914th Security Forces Squadron.  

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K recommends denial of the applicant’s request for award 
of the AFGCM.  A1K states that after a careful review of the 
information provided by the applicant, it was discovered that he 
did not have the three years of continuous active federal 
military service that would qualify him for consideration for 
the AFCGM.

The AFGCM is awarded to personnel in an enlisted status for 
“exemplary conduct” (exemplary behavior, efficiency, and 
fidelity), while in active military service of the United 
States.  The AFGCM is awarded for continuous active federal 
military service for a period of three years and based upon 
specific recommendation of the unit commander.  After a careful 
review, it was discovered the applicant did not have the three 
years of continuous service that would qualify him for the 
AFGCM.  

The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit E.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant disagrees with the disapproval of award of the 
AFGCM.  He states that his DD Form 214 reflects a period of 
continuous active federal military service from 1 Dec 04 through 
21 Jul 08.

He provides copies of his Air Force Achievement Medal, a 
Certificate of Appreciation, and his Test Summary score sheet as 
further proof of exemplary behavior during such period.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit G.

________________________________________________________________

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 to warrant 
retroactively promoting him to the grade of technical sergeant.  
The applicant argues that he was denied promotion to the grade 
of TSgt because his PIF did not contain a copy of his 2 Nov 08 
PT Test.  He states that he did have a passing PT test and 
provides a hand-written score sheet that he believes can be used 
to document Fitness Assessments.  However, the score sheet he 
provides was not sufficient to update AFFMS with an official 
score as it is not certified by a FAC member.  While the 
applicant’s contentions in response to the Air Force evaluations 
are duly noted, we do not find them sufficiently persuasive to 
override the rationale provided by the Air Force Office of 
Primary Responsibility (OPR).  Therefore, we agree with the 
opinions and recommendations of the OPR and adopt its rationale 
as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has failed to 
sustain his burden that he has been the victim of an error or 
injustice.  Regarding the applicant’s request for award of the 
AFGCM, we note that the applicant’s DD Form 214, issued in 
conjunction with his 21 Jul 08, reflects the AFCGM.  In view of 
the above and 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 Docket Number    
BC-2011-03238 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 15 Aug and 21 Aug 11,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 25 Oct 11.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 11.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Nov 13.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 12 Sep 13.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Sep 13.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Oct 13, w/atchs.




					
				Panel Chair