Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03443
Original file (BC-2012-03443.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 


IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03443 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: NO 

_____________________________________________________________ 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
His date of rank (DOR) for the grade of technical sergeant (E-6)

be changed from 1 June 12 to 7 April 12. 

_____________________________________________________________ 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
He was not promoted on time due to an error annotated on his AF

form 2096, Classification/On-The-Job Training Action. His DOR 

should coincide with the effective date of his 7 skill level. 
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is atExhibit A. 

_____________________________________________________________ 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The applicant currently serves in the Air National Guard (ANG)

in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). 

On 7 April 2012, the applicant was awarded the 1W071 (Weather
Journeyman) Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). 
On 31 May 2012, the applicant was promoted to the grade of


technical sergeant (E-6), effective and with a DOR of 1 June


2012. 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. 


_____________________________________________________________ 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
NGB/A1PP recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of

an error or injustice. The applicant contends that the AF IMT2096, contained errors that affected his promotion; however, hehas not substantiated that the contested AF IMT 2096 was not 


prepared accurately. Based on the documentation on file, and inaccordance with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, the 
applicant’s upgrade to 1W071 was only a part of the eligibilitycriteria required for promotion and did not guarantee his 
promotion to E-6. Meeting the minimum eligibility criteria onlyindicates that a member can be considered eligible for 
promotion; however, the immediate commander must recommend theairman for promotion. 

A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP 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 December 2012 for review and comment within 30days. As of this date, no response has been received by thisoffice (Exhibit D). 

_____________________________________________________________ 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided byexisting law or regulations. 
2. The application was timely filed. 
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging themerits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion andrecommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibilityand adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion theapplicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we findno basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 
_____________________________________________________________ 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; theapplication was denied without a personal appearance; and theapplication will only be reconsidered upon the submission ofnewly discovered relevant evidence not considered with thisapplication. 

_____________________________________________________________ 

2 



The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR DocketNumber BC-2012-03443 in Executive Session on 12 March 2013,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

Panel Chair 
Member 
Member 


The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 July 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant’s Mater Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 27 August 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 December 2012. 

Panel Chair 

3 




Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02149

    Original file (BC-2012-02149.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The record should be changed because it was created through an administrative error by the finance office and through no fault of her own. The Air Force Financial Services Center Debts and Remissions Branch directed the collection rate of $350.00 per month for seven months until the member's current expired term of service (ETS) date of 20 Nov 2012. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01276

    Original file (BC 2014 01276.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, as of Jan 14, there was no record of the Article 15 action. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM did not provide a recommendation; however, they noted the applicant’s request should be forwarded to the Air Force Personnel Center to have her DOR reviewed. Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 9 Feb 15.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03754

    Original file (BC-2011-03754.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03754 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The complete HQ USAF/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends voiding the three contested EPRs,contingent upon the Board approving the applicant’s request to have his FA test results removed from his records. e. His effective date...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01220

    Original file (BC 2014 01220.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, Table 2.1, Rule 2, states that an E-2 should promote to E-3 after six months of Time in Grade (TIG) in the ANG. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends denial, indicating the applicant did not receive a promotion recommendation until 6 Oct 13. We took notice of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00293

    Original file (BC 2013 00293.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    We note the letters of support from the applicant’s supervisor and commander indicating the applicant’s promotion was unreasonably delayed due to numerous administrative errors and that his DOR should be corrected to 2 April 2011. Taking into consideration the letters of support from the applicant’s chain of command, and the actual promotion recommendation form, we believe the earliest reasonable date to correct the applicant’s DOR would be the date the acting commander signed the promotion...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03976

    Original file (BC-2012-03976.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, between the time it was submitted and completed, it was discovered on or about 10 Mar 12, the position had been downgraded from an E-8 billet to an E-5 (staff sergeant) billet by the National Guard Bureau (NGB). A1PP states that after reviewing the documentation submitted by the applicant and coordinating with A1M, it was determined the E-8 position was downgraded to E-5 prior to the submission of the promotion package to the 113th Force Support Squadron on 11 Feb 12. The complete...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03691

    Original file (BC 2013 03691.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03691 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) with an overall rating of “2” for the period of 24 May 2012 thru 13 Dec 2012 be removed from his records. She advised him that she would not change the rating and asked him to sign the EPR and the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04024

    Original file (BC-2011-04024.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His fitness assessment test dated 3 March 2011 be removed. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force which are at Exhibits B through D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAF/A1PP recommends denial. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 03584

    Original file (BC 2011 03584.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He still felt pain in his left knee and the cool weather seemed to intensify the pain level. RMG/CC states, the applicant’s records indicate he was eligible for promotion with a 1 Jan 2011 effective date. ________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01112

    Original file (BC 2013 01112.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01112 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code of 6H, which denotes (Air National Guard (ANG) pending discharge in accordance with ANGR 39-10 – involuntary) be changed to an eligible code. ...