RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04554
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His High Year of Tenure (HYT) date of 21 Feb 13 be extended
38-days to 1 Apr 13.
2. He be allowed to test for promotion to the grade of senior
master sergeant (SMSgt) and be considered for promotion by the
SMSgt promotion board during cycle 13E8.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
1. He had uncommon circumstances that caused him to miss two
consecutive regular convening senior non-commissioned officer
(SNCO) selection boards due to being deployed for 15 months.
Additionally, his Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM),
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), and 2012 Enlisted Performance
Report (EPR) that highlighted his deployment should be
considered by the 13E8 selection board. These documents have
never been reviewed by a promotion board and contain substantial
information.
2. The last regular promotion board he met was in 2010. Since
he was deployed for 15 months and was unable to test, he was not
given an opportunity to meet a regular convening SNCO selection
board and he does not feel that a fair assessment was made
because all factors were not considered. Although his HYT is
not until 21 Feb 13, the documents dated back to 15 Nov 11 will
not be reviewed by any board. For this reason, he believes that
he was not afforded the same opportunities to advance his score
as his peers. If the Board grants his request to extend his HYT
by 38 days it will extend his HYT to 1 Apr 13, which is required
to be eligible to be considered by the 13E8 promotion board.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant retired from the Regular Air Force on 1 Mar 13 in
the grade of master sergeant.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of
the Air Force, which is at Exhibit C and D.
________________________________________________________________
_
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOR recommends denying the applicants request to have
his HYT extended. The applicant applied for a HYT extension in
September 2012; however, his request was disapproved due to the
worldwide and base level manning for both master sergeant and
senior master sergeant being over 100 percent manned.
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denying the applicants request to allow
him to test and be considered for promotion to SMSgt during the
13E8 cycle. The applicant tested for SMSgt upon his return from
his deployment in an out-of-cycle test during the 12E8 promotion
cycle and was provided supplemental promotion consideration for
both cycles; however, he was rendered as non-select.
Additionally, the applicant believes that he was not given a
fair assessment of his records. The reason the these documents
did not go before the promotion board is because their close out
dates did not meet the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD)
for any previous cycle; the PECD for cycle 12E8 was 30 Sep 11;
therefore, the first time these documents would have been
considered by a promotion board was cycle 13E8 that has a PECD
of 30 Sep 12.
Furthermore, in order to be eligible for promotion consideration
for SMSgt during cycle 13E8, the applicants separation must
have been 1 Apr 13 or later. In this case, the applicant has a
retirement date of 1 Mar 13 making him ineligible for promotion
consideration.
The complete DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
_
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 6 Apr 13 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 opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility and adopt their 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 issues 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-2012-04554 in Executive Session on 27 Jun 13, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2012-04554
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Sep 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 21 Feb 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 15 Mar 13.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Apr 13.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04555
On 15 May 12, he was sent an email that stated there were 8 first sergeants that had competed during the 12E8 WAPS cycle who tested in the wrong CAFSC and two of them were selected for SMSgt. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He reiterates his original contentions and believes he did everything in his power to ensure he was competing in the correct CAFSC...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01490
Per AFI 36-2502, paragraph 2.8.3.1, a supplemental request based on a missing decoration must have a closeout date on or before the PECD and the commanders recommendation date on the Décor-6 must be before the date AFPC makes the selections for promotion. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The investigation by his chain of command clearly shows credible evidence that the MSM recommendation was placed into military channels and was...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00431
He was told that he would receive an honorable discharge with full separation pay under HYT but the error with his promotion caused him to only receive half separation pay. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to be considered for promotion to the grade of TSgt indicating he was separated on 17 Dec 13 and ineligible in accordance with AFI 36- 2502, Airman Promotion Program Table 2.1. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOR...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03937
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03937 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her line number for promotion to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt/E-8) be reinstated for promotion cycle 11E8. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04370
As a result, the applicant and one other member were erroneously selected for promotion. Upon discovery of the error, the applicants erroneous promotion selection was removed and the eight members who were considered in the wrong AFSC were given supplemental promotion consideration in the 8F000 AFSC. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He checked with the...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00540
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The referral report he received was unjustly rendered as a “3” in violation of numerous requirements of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems. The contested report should not have been a referral report. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to remove the contested EPR from his...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 04054
On 7 September 2007, he tested for promotion to the grade of CMSGT, promotion cycle 07E9, under his Control AFSC (CAFSC) at the time of 8T000. ______________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was selected for promotion to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant during promotion cycle 07E9 in the Control Air Force Specialty Code of 8T000,...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01357
DPSOE states the first time the decoration in question (worth one point) would have been used in the promotion process was cycle 08E6 to the grade of TSgt. At the time of the DPSOE evaluation, the applicant had been considered and non-selected for promotion to TSgt three times (cycles 08E6, 09E6, and 10E6). 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...
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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-00595
If an individual performed duties in a secondary AFSC, it might be reflected in one of the EPRs or decorations, or in the duty history; however, a secondary AFSC has never been reflected as a separate entry on the SNCO evaluation brief. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 Aug 11 for review and...