RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05456
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to master sergeant.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not promoted to master sergeant and was denied Air
National Guard technician pay. He requested to be promoted from
technical sergeant to master sergeant and was denied by his
commander.
The applicants complete submission is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a former member of the Air National Guard who
retired in the grade of technical sergeant.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PP recommends denial. The application is untimely.
In accordance with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, paragraph
1.4, the immediate commander must first recommend the airman for
promotion. Meeting the minimum criteria for promotion only
indicates that the airman can be considered for promotion.
There is no evidence of an error or injustice with regard to his
non-selection for promotion to master sergeant.
The complete 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 15 September 2014, for review and comment within
30 days (Exhibit D). 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 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
and find 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 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 this
application.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-05456 in Executive Session on 16 October 2014,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-05456 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 13.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Record Excerpts.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 12 Aug 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Sep 14.
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 | 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...
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 02601
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 indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. In accordance with ANGI 36-2002, Enlistment and Reenlistment in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force, Table 1.5, if an applicant is non-prior service (NPS), the term of...
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 00986
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00986 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Demotion Order ABE3-01, dated 31 October 2012, be revoked and he be returned to the rank of master sergeant (E-7) ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due process was not followed to request...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04888
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. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03443
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03443 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _____________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank (DOR) for the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) be changed from 1 June 12 to 7 April 12. On 31 May 2012, the applicant was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6), effective and with a DOR of 1 June 2012. The remaining...
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-2013-00944
The decision of the Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) to non-retain him was in reprisal for his efforts to correct his civilian personnel records to reflect he was in the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) instead of the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). In this case, the state of Michigan followed the appropriate procedural and program requirements during the selective retention process of the applicant. The stated basis of the Boards decision to non-retain the...