AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02914 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
He  be  promoted  to  the  rank  of  Chief  Master  Sergeant  (CMSgt) 
effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Mar 99. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1. He  was  hired  by  a  general  for  a  supervisory  military 
personnel  specialist  job.    Typically,  the  hiring  official  for 
the position was the Military Personnel Flight (MPF) commander; 
however, it was elevated to the wing level.   
 
2. On  1  Jul  97,  AFRC/DPS  provided  guidance  on  the  MPF 
reorganization  which  required  one  of  two  positions  to  move  to 
the Education and Training section.  He was moved into the newly 
created  position  and  a  CMSgt  was  moved  into  his  old  position.  
The CMSgt held the required 3S2X1 (Education and Training), Air 
Force  Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  for  the  new  position  and  the 
guidance stated to consider selecting the most qualified member, 
preferably  someone  who  has  previously  held  the  3S2X1 AFSC.    He 
did not hold the 3S2X1 AFSC and would have had to attend school 
for the position.  The guidance also stated a college degree was 
needed  for  position  and  a  waiver  of  this  requirement  could  be 
sought.    He  was  informed  he  was  being  placed  in  the  Education 
and  Training  position  due  to  him  having  a  college  degree.    He 
was penalized for having a college degree.   
 
3.  His  organization  has  continued  to  place  less  qualified 
minorities in positions where they can be promoted as opposed to 
promoting  those  who  are  doing  everything  they  can  to  be 
promoted.   
 
4. The  grade  of  his  original  position  was  an  E-9  and  had  he 
stayed in that position he would have been promoted to CMSgt on 
1 Mar 99.   
 
5. The CMSgt was eventually moved for not being able to perform 
the duties of the position and another minority, junior to him, 
was placed into the position and promoted to the grade of CMSgt.  
For  more  than  a  decade,  commander  and  first  sergeant  positions 
in his squadron have been filled by females.   
 

6. He  has  appealed  to  every  known  avenue  to  have  this  reviewed 
and  corrected.    Each  was  met  with  rejection  and  retaliation  to 
the  point  he  feared  his  career  would  be  terminated  before  he 
retired.   
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
According  to  ARPC  memorandum  dated  29  Oct  11,  the  applicant  was 
previously  promoted  to  the  rank  of  chief  warrant  officer  (W-2) 
and served satisfactorily in that grade.  

 On  2  Aug  12,  the  applicant  was  released  from  the  Air  Force 
Reserves and transferred to the Retired Reserve Section.   
 
The  remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application  are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C.  
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFRC/A1K  recommends  denial.    A1K  states  it  is  solely  at  the 
discretion  of  the  assigned  supervisor/designee  to  recommend 
promotion to the promotion authority when an individual has met 
the  eligibility  requirements  for  promotion  to  the  next  higher 
grade.   
 
The  applicant  has  not  provided  any  supporting  documentation 
(i.e.  signed  promotion  roster  by  the  promotion  authority  or 
promotion orders) to sustain he should have been promoted to the 
grade of CMSgt or that he was ever selected for promotion by the 
promotion authority.     
 
The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  first  paragraph  of  the  advisory  opinion  states  that  he 
claims he should have been promoted on 1 Mar 99, to the rank of 
CMSgt due to him holding the position.  However, he contends a 
management directed reassignment caused him to lose eligibility 
for promotion.  
 
The second paragraph of the advisory opinion states that he had 
not provided any supporting documentation (i.e. signed promotion 
roster  by  the  promotion  authority  or  promotion  orders)  to 

 

2 

sustain  his  claim  he  should  have  been  promoted  to  the  rank 
CMSgt.  He agrees.  However, he hopes the additional information 
he provides will substantiate his claim.  
 
He was told “you will retire as a Chief Warrant Officer-2 (CWO-
2)  and  we  do  not  want  CMSgt  XXXXX  to  lose  a  stripe.”    CMSgt 
XXXXX could have and should have been placed into the Education 
and Training position.  Furthermore, the reorganization guidance 
stated the wing commander could have authorized an over grade in 
accordance with AFI 36-2215 {sic}, Assignment within the Reserve 
Components.  Even if CMSgt XXXXX had to remove a stripe for the 
Education and Training position, she still would have retired at 
her highest grade held – CMSgt, just like he retired as a CWO-2. 
 
Based on his interpretation of the reorganization implementation 
guidance,  the  applicant  states  he  should  have  never  been  moved 
in  the  Education  and  Training  position  and  forced  to  retrain 
into  another  AFSC.    In  essence,  he  was  penalized  for  self-
improvement.    Since  CMSgt  XXXXX  possessed  the  3S2X1  AFSC,  she 
should  have  been  moved  into  the  position  and  a  degree  waiver 
should have been requested.   
 
Lastly,  if  he  had  remained  in  the  position  for  which  he 
interviewed  and  was  selected,  he  would  have  been  promoted  to 
CMSgt on 1 Mar 99.  Unfortunately, he had to start training at 
the one-skill level and lost his promotion eligibility under the 
unit vacancy promotion system. 
 
In further support of his appeal the applicant provides a three-
page  supplemental  statement,  AF  Form  2096,  Classification/On-
The-Job  Training  Action, and various other documents in support 
of his request. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit E. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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 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.    We  note  the 
applicant states a management directed assignment caused him to 

 

3 

lose  his  eligibility  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  CMSgt. 
However, in the absence of evidence that supports the commander 
exceeded his discretionary authority and that he would have been 
selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  CMSgt,  we  find  the 
applicant  has  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of  proving  that  he 
has  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.    Therefore,  in 
view  of  the  above  and  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  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  Docket  Number    
BC-2012-02914  in  Executive  Session  on  28  Mar  13,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
Panel Chair 
 
 
Member 
 
Member 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jun 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/A1K,dated 18 Sep 12. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Sep 12. 
 
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Oct 12. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair 

  
  
  

  
  

 
 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

4