Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03666
Original file (BC-2011-03666.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03666 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be reinstated to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Demotion Authority cited a rescinded Air Force Instruction 
(AFI). He notes the AFI that was cited states, “Airmen may be 
demoted when, after entry into the weight management program, 
they cannot maintain body fat standards as outlined in AFI 40-
502, Air Force Weight Management Program (formerly AFR 35-11).” 
The demotion was based on an AFI which was not legal for over 4 
years due to it being rescinded on 1 Jan 04. He received an e-
mail from the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) stating the 
absence of supporting documentation for the demotion in his 
personnel record identifies that parts of the governing AFI were 
not followed. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of e-
mail communications and a copy of his demotion decision letter. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted into the Regular Air Force on 26 Jun 91. 
The applicant was demoted to staff sergeant on 18 Jul 08 as a 
result of punishment imposed by his commander for failing to 
maintain physical fitness standards. The applicant also received 
four referral Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) during the 
period of 15 May 07 and 21 Aug 10 for failing to maintain 
physical fitness standards. 

 

His retirement order, dated 18 Aug 10, reflects he was retired in 
the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) effective 1 Jul 11. He served 
20 years and 5 days on active duty. 

 

On 20 Apr 11, a special order to amend his retirement order was 
generated that states, “REMARKS: AS READS: “HIGHEST GRADE HELD 


ON ACTIVE DUTY: SSGT (E-5)” IS AMENDED TO READ: “HIGHTEST GRADE 
HELD ON ACTIVE DUTY: TSGT (E-6)”. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. The applicant was demoted to staff 
sergeant because he was unable to maintain his fitness. The 
demotion AFI in effect at the time was AFI 36-2503, dated 13 Jul 
94; paragraph 3.4.1 references AFI 40-502, which had been changed 
to AFI 10-248, effective 25 Sep 06, and is now AFI 36-2905 
(effective 1 Jul 10). Since the demotion AFI was not rewritten 
until 31 Dec 09, its reference to AFI 40-502 at the time of the 
demotion action was valid. Regardless of how the Instruction was 
designated/labeled, the fact remains that the applicant failed to 
meet AF fitness standards and his commander had the authority to 
administratively demote him for that reason. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 10 Nov 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 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. 

 

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 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-2011-03666 in Executive Session on 15 Mar 12, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Sep 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 4 Oct 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Nov 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02085

    Original file (BC-2011-02085.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02085 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. To date, a response has not been received (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02447

    Original file (BC-2008-02447.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    These options were documented and identified to the applicant by his WBFMP manager and commander. ________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04345

    Original file (BC 2013 04345.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the demotion action and restore his rank to Technical Sergeant. Therefore, in view of the fact that we have determined the evidence is sufficient to conclude there was a causal nexus between the medical condition for which the applicant received a disability discharged and his ability to attain passing scores on his FAs, we also believe it is reasonable to conclude...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03455

    Original file (BC 2013 03455.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 25 Apr 12, the applicant received notification of demotion action under AFI 36-2502, Failure to Keep Fit, paragraph 6.3.5, due to four fitness assessment failures within a 24-month period. However, recommend removing FA dated 18 Jun 10, based on the fact that this was before the implementation of AFI 36-2905 (AFGM2), dated 20 Dec 10, giving Unit Commanders the authority to invalidate FAs. Although the applicant provided a memorandum from his medical provider stating that he had a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04035 (2)

    Original file (BC 2013 04035 (2).txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a letter dated 22 Oct 13, the demotion authority reinstated his grade to SSgt with his original Date of Rank (DOR) of 9 Jan 13. As such, if the applicant wants to make a request to remove the referral EPRs, he must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations, such as the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04179

    Original file (BC 2013 04179.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial of his request to have his FA dated 20 Jun 12, removed from AFFMS indicating the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his claim. The complete DPSIM evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the demotion action and restore his rank to SrA. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 13 Jun 14.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02515

    Original file (BC-2012-02515.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In paragraph 6.1.6, it states if the demotion authority restores the airman's original grade following the demotion, he or she must do so between three and six months after the effective date of the demotion. Based on the available evidence, which includes statements from the applicant's current commander and first sergeant, medical records, FA history since 2004, and the demotion action file; the demotion action was procedurally correct and there is no evidence that the applicant's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01797

    Original file (BC 2014 01797.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 Feb 14, according to information provided by the applicant, the Fitness Assessment Appeals Board (FAAB) directed the removal of two of his FA failures ( and ) from the applicant’s AFFMS record. Although two of the six FA failures have been removed by the FAAB, the applicant does not have the support/approval of his commander, or the demotion authority, to restore his rank to Technical Sergeant (E-6). Therefore, the commander is within his authority to demote the applicant for the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03988

    Original file (BC 2014 03988.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 11 Dec 85, the applicant received an honorable discharge. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. While we acknowledge the applicant’s request to have her Staff Sergeant rank reinstated due to current weight management program standards, this board notes that standards in effect during the applicant’s service were the standards to be adhered to by all Air Force service members at that time.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01519

    Original file (BC 2014 01519.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He be provided the E-5 back-pay from the date of his 15 May 13 demotion date. The narrative reason for his retirement was “Temporary Early Retirement Authority.” 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 and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends denial due to lack of supporting evidence (i.e. medical validation, commander's invalidation...