RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04166
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. Her Verification of Military Experience and Training (VMET)
be corrected.
2. She be reconsidered for promotion to the rank of master
sergeant (MSgt, E-7) based on merit and sustained superior
performance.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her VMET contains erroneous information and should be corrected.
Between 2008 through 2010, she requested numerous times to
demonstrate her supervisory skills. However, she was not given
this opportunity to succeed or fail as a leader because she was
indispensable in her assigned duty. Nevertheless, she is
qualified based upon her record of performance.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force at Exhibits B and C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PP recommends denial of the applicants request to be
reconsidered for promotion to the rank of MSgt. A1PP states
that after reviewing the documentation submitted by the
applicant and the attached Congressional response from the Texas
Joint Force Headquarters, dated 4 Nov 2010, they were not able
to substantiate that an error or injustice occurred in this
case. Her chain of command determined that she had not
performed up to the level for promotion to the rank of MSgt.
Moreover, in accordance with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen,
Table 2.1, rule 6, she did not have the requisite retainability
(12 months) for promotion to the rank of MSgt.
The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
AFPC/DPFFF recommends denial of the applicants request to
correct her VMET. DPFFF states that the VMET is not a source
document to be used for promotions, awards, or formal
documentation. It is an extract from the Personnel Data System
provided by the Air Force Personnel Center and other Services to
assist transitioning personnel with resumes and employment
preparation. If the applicant feels the information is
incorrect, her records should be disputed, not the VMET.
The complete DPFFF evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 21 Jan 2013, copies of the Air Force evaluations were
forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within
30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this
office (Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
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 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(s)
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 this application
in Executive Session on 11 Jun 2013, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
, Vice Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-04166:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Sep 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 26 Sep 2012, w/atch.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPFFF, dated 8 Jan 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Jan 2013.
Vice Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-04166
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04166 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibits B and...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-02900
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends denial of the applicants request for promotion to Master Sergeant, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice. ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airman, states Prior to promotion to any...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05857
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. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends denial because the applicant has not exhausted her administrative remedies. The applicant states that her referral EPR, should not have made it to administrative personnel after the Additional Rater and Reviewer non-concurred with the unjust rating. In...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05006
According to documentation provided by the applicant, on 20 Jun 13, the applicant requested removal of the contested OPR to the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB); however, her request was denied. Based on our review of the applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the contested report is not a true and accurate assessment of her performance and demonstrated potential during the specified time period or that the comments contained in the report...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05285
According to Mil Form 88, Record of Proceedings under Article 15, WCMJ, on 17 June 2010, the Assistant Adjutant General imposed nonjudicial punishment on the applicant who was reduced from the rank of MSgt to the rank of SSgt effective 17 June 2010. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a memorandum dated 6 January 2014, NGB/A1PP recommends correcting the applicants records to reflect his retirement rank as TSgt. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-02149
________________________________________________________________ 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 | 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 02594
According to their divorce decree, the decedent agreed to maintain the applicant as the SBP beneficiary. DPFFF recommends the members record be corrected to reflect on 13 Sep 2002, he elected to change SBP spouse to former spouse coverage based on full retired pay, naming the applicant as the former spouse beneficiary. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02998
However, there is no evidence either party submitted a valid former spouse election during the required time following their divorce. Neither the applicant nor the former spouse submitted a valid election within the one-year period required by law to establish former spouse coverage. Exhibit D. Letter, Member, dated 3 Sep 2013, w/atch.