Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-04166
Original file (BC-2012-04166.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04166

    Original file (BC 2012 04166.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC 2013 04039.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2012-02900.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 which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PP recommends denial of the applicant’s 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

    Original file (BC 2013 05857.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC 2013 05006.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC 2013 05285.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 applicant’s 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

    Original file (BC-2012-02149.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-2012-01911.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC 2013 02594.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    According to their divorce decree, the decedent agreed to maintain the applicant as the SBP beneficiary. DPFFF recommends the member’s 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

    Original file (BC 2013 02998.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.