RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04888
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His date of rank (DOR) to senior airman (E-4) be changed to when
he was originally eligible for promotion to E-4.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not promoted to E-4 when he was eligible and, as a
result, his promotion to staff sergeant (E-5) will be delayed.
He was erroneously advised by his servicing Force Support
Squadron (FSS) that the requirement for promotion to E-4 is 24
months time in service (TIS) and 24 months time in grade (TIG),
when in fact the requirement for promotion to E-4 is 24 months
TIS and 12 months TIG.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants military personnel records indicate he enlisted
in the Air National Guard (ANG) in the grade of airman first
class (E-3), effective 24 Feb 09.
In accordance with Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-
2502, Promotion of Airmen, the applicant was eligible for
promotion to the grade of senior airman (E-4) on 24 Feb 11, when
he obtained 24 months TIS, 12 months TIG, and a 3-skill level in
a Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC).
On 1 Sep 12, the applicant was promoted to the grade of senior
airman (E-4).
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of
primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1P recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an
error or an injustice. While the applicant was eligible for
promotion on 24 Feb 11, there is no indication that his
commander recommended him for promotion. The mere fact that a
member meets all the eligibility criteria for promotion does not
automatically guarantee promotion to the next higher grade; the
immediate commander must first recommend the airman for
promotion. The burden of proof for the erroneous or unjust
action is on the applicant and he has not provided such
documentation and there is no indication that his commander
recommended him for promotion. Furthermore, the applicant
subsequently retrained into another AFSC, thereby rendering him
ineligible for promotion until 2 Jul 12.
A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP 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 3 Feb 14 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 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
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 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-2013-04888 in Executive Session on 21 Aug 14, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Oct 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 3 Feb 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 14.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01220
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, Table 2.1, Rule 2, states that an E-2 should promote to E-3 after six months of Time in Grade (TIG) in the ANG. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends denial, indicating the applicant did not receive a promotion recommendation until 6 Oct 13. We took notice of the...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00029
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00029 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) be changed from 20 Nov 13 to 20 Jun 13. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is included at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE...
According to DPPPWB, based on the applicant’s DOR to senior airman of 15 Feb 00, the first time she will be eligible to be considered in the promotion process to staff sergeant would be cycle 01E5. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was promoted to the grade of airman on 15 Aug 97, rather than 15 Jul 97 when she would have completed the minimum six months TIG for promotion to airman. Exhibit D. Letter, applicant, dated 22 Jan 01.
AF | 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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 01234
Grade Determination for Non-Prior Service (NPS) Enlistees, enlistment in the grade of E-3 is authorized when the applicant meets the following criteria: a. Presents General Billy Mitchell Award certificate showing successful completion of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) training program. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary which is attached at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01514
He had 4 years TIS and 3 years TIG at the time of his enlistment and other than the 3-level waiver, was fully qualified to be promoted to the grade of Senior Airman/E-4. A waiver was submitted, however the waiver was not timely approved because it lacked the necessary proof of certification. _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00027
On 20 Nov 13, the applicant was promoted to the grade of E-3. As such, he was never eligible for promotion to the grade of E-3, effective 21 Jun 13, as requested. A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP additional evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He argues a change to the FY13, R&R Initiatives added his AFSC 2T2X1 to the critical skills AFSC list, effective 1 Oct 12, as verified through his Force Support Squadron (FSS).
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03976
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). 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. The complete...
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and indicated that basic eligibility requirements for promotion to senior airman are a minimum of 36 months' total active federal military service (TAFMS) and 20 months' time-in- grade (TIG) as an airman first class (both requirements must be met) or 28 months' TIG whichever is satrsfied first, not be ineligible for any of the reasons outlined in AFI 36-2502, Table 1.1, or Headquarters...