RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03818
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) with an
original date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 July 2010.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
There was insufficient documentation as to why her rank was
deferred. Her request to obtain her original DOR was rejected by
her commander due to timeliness. She was deployed for 10 months
and following her return her husband PCSd to Osan AB Korea for a
year.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty on 18 April 2006.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application,
extracted from the applicants military records, are contained in
the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at
Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the applicant was
tentatively selected for promotion to SSgt during cycle 09E5.
She received promotion sequence number (PSN) 13434.0 which would
have incremented 1 July 2010. The applicant received two MFRs
and one Letter of Counseling (LOC) between 2 April 2010 and
21 June 2010. On 29 June 2010, she was informed that her
promotion was being deferred for a period of three months for
unacceptable behavior or performance standards; specifically,
violations of AFI 36-2903 (Dress and Personal Appearance of AF
Personnel); failure to report to place of duty on time; and
violation of AFI 36-3003 (Military Leave Program). She
acknowledged receipt on 29 June 2010 and provided a response on
16 July 2010. On 12 March 2012, the applicant requested
reinstatement of her original DOR but her request was denied.
The applicant contends there was insufficient documentation as to
why her promotion was being deferred; however, the notification
of deferment letter clearly states the reason for the action and
length of deferment. In accordance with AFI 36-2502, paragraphs
4.2.1.1. and 4.2.3., commanders inform airmen of adverse actions
in writing or verbally before promotion effective date (confirm
verbal notification in writing within five duty days). The
notification memorandum must include reasons, dates, occurrences,
and duration of the action. Deferring a promotion delays the
promotion and pay past the original effective date to allow the
commander to determine if the airman meets acceptable behavior or
performance standards. The deferral duration is for one to three
months. The promotion authority must make a promotion decision,
in writing, upon completion of the deferral period. The DOR and
effective date is the first day of the month after the deferral
period ends and cannot be retroactive.
Since her original DOR was 1 July 2010, this deferment would now
make her DOR and effective date of promotion to SSgt 1 October
2010. Besides delaying her pin-on and payment for SSgt, the
deferment also delayed her eligibility for promotion
consideration to technical sergeant (TSgt) from the 12E6 cycle to
the 13E6 cycle as the DOR eligibility for cycle 12E6 was 1 August
2010.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 5 November 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days
(Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 an error or injustice. The
applicants contentions are duly noted; 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.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-0818 in Executive Session on 8 May 2013, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-03818 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 July 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 1 October 2012
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 November 2012.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03988
In a letter to the applicant dated 10 December 2013, AFPC/DPSID advised him that his first avenue of relief for his request to replace the 14 January 2012 EPR with the 4 July 2011 and 16 January 2012 electronic EPRs would be through the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB). AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicant's record be corrected to reflect promotion to the rank of TSgt with a Date of Rank (DOR) and Promotion Effective Date (PED) of 1 May 2013. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04004
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04004 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be granted supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) for promotion cycle 12E6. The applicant was considered and non- selected for promotion to E-6 during promotion cycle 12E6. The remaining relevant facts...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03464
Her current Date of Rank (DOR) be changed from 1 June 2013, to 28 May 2009; the date she reentered the Regular Air Force 3. They reaccomplished the applicants Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS)_ evaluation worksheet based upon her updated point credit summary report and deemed that she still does not meet the requirements in accordance with AFI 36- 2002, Regular Air Force and Special Category Accessions, paragraph Attachment 4, paragraph A4.2, Prior Service (PS) Date of Rank and...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05529
A suspended reduction to the rank of SSgt would have more appropriate for a first time offense. The reduction to the rank of Senior Airman (SrA, E-4) as a result of Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP), UCMJ was mitigated to a fine of $1,000. For example, if a member receives Article 15 punishment on 1 June, consisting of a reduction in grade, and the commander subsequently (on 1 July) mitigates the reduction to forfeiture, both the effective date and DOR for the restored grade is 1 July.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00264
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00264 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. As a result of the failed FAs, his projected promotion to the grade of SSgt was cancelled and he received a referral EPR. Although DPSOE initially recommended denial of the applicants request to be supplementally considered for promotion to...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 01472
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit H. AFLOA/JAJM addresses the applicants nonjudicial punishment (Article 15), and determines the applicants commander did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making the decision to punish the applicant under Article 15. In addition, while the Board notes the applicant was denied the opportunity to test for promotion during the 10E5 promotion cycle, the fact she did not test also constitutes a harmless error because she was not...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05120
Rule 5, Note 2, dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD and the date of the DECOR 6 must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05819
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-05819 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her current Date of Rank (DOR) be changed to reflect that she was promoted during cycle 09E5 rather than Cycle 10E5. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommended denial of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-02013
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Through counsel applicant states she was issued an LOR for allegedly having an unprofessional relationship with another Airman, who was not in her chain of command or a member of her unit. In this case, the LOR dated 7 December 2006, was filed in the UIF. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02472
Unit Commanders must inform airmen of adverse actions in writing or verbally before promotion effective date. DPSOE states the applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to technical sergeant; however, her promotion was placed in withhold on 24 Feb 10 due to her being under military/civil investigation. DPSOE notes the applicants contention that the withhold action was not accomplished by the unit commander per the governing AFI; however, her commander explains in her 21 Apr 10...