Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02153
Original file (BC 2013 02153.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02153

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt/E-7).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was overlooked for promotion consideration in Fiscal Year 2007, and should have been promoted six months after being placed in his position. 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 23 Apr 07, the applicant was reassigned from the Alabama Air National Guard to the 78th Civil Engineering (CE) Group at Robbins AFB, GA.  

According to documentation submitted by the applicant, on 29 May 07, his commander non-selected him for promotion to MSgt, indicating he needed six months time-on-station (TOS) to be considered for promotion. 

On 19 Dec 07, the applicant was reassigned from the CE Group at Robbins AFB to HQ ARPC, due to being identified as “surplus to requirements.” 

On 8 Jan 08, the applicant was reassigned from HQ ARPC to the 55th Combat Communications Squadron at Robbins AFB, GA.  

On 8 Mar 09, the applicant received individual counseling for failing to attend a mandatory medical appointment. 

On 5 Apr 09, the applicant received individual counseling for his attitude toward the Commander Support Staff personnel while conducting his annual fitness assessment.  
On 11 Jul 09, the applicant’s supervisor chose not to recommend him for reenlistment, and his commander did not select him for reenlistment.  The reasons for this action were the applicant’s failure to make progress in the Air Force physical training program and due to lack of unit productivity in the Orderly Room.  

On 12 Jul 09, the applicant acknowledged his non-selection for reenlistment and did not submit an appeal by the required appeal date.  

On 13 Jan 10, the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the grade of Technical Sergeant, to await retired pay at age 60.

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

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The applicant was, in fact, considered for promotion on 1 May 07, but not selected.  Air Force Reserve enlisted members are promoted in accordance with (IAW) AF Policy Directive 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotion, and Air Force Reserve Enlisted Promotion Policy.  IAW AFPD 36-25, individuals must be or have been a 7-skill level in their Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC), have eight years of satisfactory service for retirement, completed the command Non-commissioned Officer (NCO) Academy, and be recommended by their supervisor and approved by the promotion authority.  The member must also be able to obtain 24-months of retainability, be a satisfactory participant IAW AFI 36-2264VI, Reserve Personnel Participation, and meet Air Force physical fitness standards for promotion.  There is no Air Force Reserve enlisted promotion policy that guarantees a member will or must be promoted six months after being placed into a higher graded position.  The applicant did not provide documentation to support his contention he should have been promoted.   

A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K 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 23 Aug 13 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 not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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 the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material 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-2013-02153 in Executive Session on 6 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 30 Jul 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Aug 13.





                                   
                                   Panel Chair
                                    













Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01457

    Original file (BC 2014 01457.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01457 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted a waiver for being twice deferred for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5) while on Active duty so he may transfer to the Air Force Reserve (AFR). Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice with regards to the applicant’s request for a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05436

    Original file (BC 2012 05436.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Before issuing the LOR, the OG/CC requested a copy of the LOR purportedly given to the applicant while performing duties at Tyndall AFB since there was no record of the LOR in the applicant’s personnel file. The OG/CC never received a copy of said LOR and therefore documented the applicant’s misconduct with the LOR, dated 18 Sep 10. A complete copy of the AFRC/JA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01639

    Original file (BC 2014 01639.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C and D. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends approval, indicating there is evidence of an error or injustice. Individuals must meet the following criteria for promotion to Airman, have six months time in grade (TIG) after entering Initial Active Duty Training (IADT) and to be eligible for promotion...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00673

    Original file (BC 2014 00673.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 Sep 87, the applicant enlisted in the Air Force Reserve. A complete copy of the AFRC/SG evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFRC/A1K recommends denial of the applicant’s request for his retired grade to be changed to MSgt, indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. An enlisted member’s promotion to the next higher grade is not based solely on a member meeting minimum promotion eligibility requirements.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00522

    Original file (BC-2011-00522.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00522 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to reflect he was reassigned to Inactive Status List Reserve Section (ISLRS) effective 1 June 2006. Therefore, they recommend changing the record to reflect the applicant was reassigned to ISLRS effective 18 August 2007, six...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02444

    Original file (BC 2013 02444.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR) which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOR recommends the applicant’s record be corrected to reflect he requested and received a reserve commission and transferred to the IRR when he separated from active duty. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C. ARPC/DPA recommends approval,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02181

    Original file (BC 2013 02181.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He transferred from the SELRES before the Post-9/11 Transfer of Benefits (TEB) was in effect. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02811

    Original file (BC 2014 02811.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The commander was told that since the applicant was a ten year First Sergeant who did not hold a 9- skill level she could not remain a CMSgt and that there was not a method for First Sergeants to be promoted to CMSgt. A complete copy of the rebuttal is at Exhibit F. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s MILPDS record was reviewed and noted as follows: 16 Jan 03, member last held AFSC 2A671; 17 Jan 03, member was selected into a SDI 8F000 (First Sergeant); 1 Mar 11,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00435

    Original file (BC-2007-00435.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00435 INDEX CODE: 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 July 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Signature dates on an Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing out 28 July 2006, be corrected to a date prior to the convening of the FY07 Line and Non-line USAFR Colonel...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01576

    Original file (BC-2010-01576.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Neither of these periods of time constitutes a break in service, based on applicable Air Force and DoD directives. A1K notes, IAW AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and Dates of Rank, para 4.6 and DoD Financial Management Regulation (DoDFMR) 7000.14-R, Military Pay Policy and Procedures – Active Duty and Reserve Pay, an assignment to the Inactive Reserve or Retired Reserve is not considered a break in military service because the member is assigned to a military status and as such, is subject to...