RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03976
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be given a retroactive promotion to the grade of senior master
sergeant (SMSgt/E-8).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
On 11 Feb 12, his commander submitted the required forms for his
promotion to the grade of SMSgt. 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).
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard
(ANG) in the grade of master sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PP recommends denial. A1PP states that they coordinated
with NGB/A1M, Requirements Branch and validated the E-8 position
on the Unit Manning Document (UMD) at the Joint Forces
Headquarters, Detachment 1, was downgraded to E-5, effective
1 Jan 12, as a result of the 2012 Enlisted Grade Review.
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. A1PP states that they find no error or injustice.
The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the
applicant on 10 Dec 12, for review and comment within 30 days.
As of this date, no response has been received by this office
(Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
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. We took
notice of the applicants 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. 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-2012-03976 in Executive Session on 21 May 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2012-03976 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 28 Sep 12.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Dec 12.
Panel ChairAF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00803
The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANTS REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He was denied promotion because the MS ANG reneged on his assignment orders without advising him just weeks after arriving on station. The resource to promote him to the grade of SMSgt as reflected on his orders was taken away when another member was placed in his position. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC 2011 03584
He still felt pain in his left knee and the cool weather seemed to intensify the pain level. RMG/CC states, the applicants 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-03584
He still felt pain in his left knee and the cool weather seemed to intensify the pain level. RMG/CC states, the applicants 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-2012-05226
The complete NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit D. NGB/A1PF does not provide a recommendation but states that upon review of the applicants debt generated against his Aviator Continuation Pay agreement, they have concluded that, as it currently stands, the debt is valid. Additionally, the applicant has not provided supporting documentation to establish a basis to extend his MSD or show that he was treated in an unjust manner with respect to his promotion and repayment of ACP. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00293
We note the letters of support from the applicants supervisor and commander indicating the applicants 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 applicants chain of command, and the actual promotion recommendation form, we believe the earliest reasonable date to correct the applicants DOR would be the date the acting commander signed the promotion...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04039
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends approval of the applicant's request to have her retired grade adjusted to MSgt rather than TSgt. There was no evidence of misconduct in the 3 years, 8 months the applicant held the higher grade of MSgt, and her demotion to the grade of TSgt was voluntary based on her reassignment to a lower graded position. The complete SAFPC evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00824
According to Special Order (SO) A-7, dated 6 Oct 06, on 15 Oct 06, The Adjutant General (TAG) of Pennsylvania Air National Guard (PA ANG), demoted the applicant to the grade of MSgt for failure to fulfill his Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) responsibilities. According to a memorandum, dated 10 Oct 13, from TAG, the denied the applicants appeal, dated 21 Aug 13, and determined that his appeal was untimely based on his submission 6 years after the events occurred. Further, while we note...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00077
However, after the transfer, the KYANG informed him they would not honor the commission that he had been approved for until there was a unit vacancy for a weather officer. He had served almost 30 years and was serving in the grade of SMSgt at the time of his transfer to the Retired Reserve. It appears the applicant has been the victim of unfortunate timing at several times in his career; however, in order to receive retired pay in an officer grade, the member must be commissioned as an...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01911
At the time she was discharged she had no idea that she was permanently disqualified from reentering a military service. The medical discharge is a false representation of her service in the Air National Guard (ANG). The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 20 Dec 12 for review and comment within 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01276
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 applicants request should be forwarded to the Air Force Personnel Center to have her DOR reviewed. Exhibit D. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 9 Feb 15.