Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00123
Original file (BC-2013-00123.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00123

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank of master sergeant (E-7) be restored.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His unit and medical staff, being aware of his medical condition of rheumatoid arthritis, assured him that adequate medication and medical care would be available at his deployed location in Thumrait Air Base, Oman.  However, it was not.  

His medical condition quickly improved when he returned from his deployment and was under the care of his private doctor.

His medical condition was a contributing factor for the removal of his promotion to E-7, although his condition never interfered with the performance of his duties.  

He fulfilled all requirements necessary for promotion to E-7.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate that he served as a traditional (part-time) member of the Air Force Reserve during the matter under review.

On 15 January 2003, the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), effective 20 January 2003.  

On 18 October 2003, the applicant returned from his OEF deployment.  

On 30 October 2003, the applicant was promoted to the permanent grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective 1 November 2003.  
On 6 November 2003, the applicant’s promotion order was revoked by virtue of an AF Form 973, Request and Authorization For Change of Administrative Orders. 

On 1 October 2004, the applicant was relieved of his Reserve assignment and transferred to the Retired Reserve in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) to await retired pay at age 60.   

On 27 March 2010, per 10 USC § 12731, the applicant was authorized retired pay and placed on the USAF retired list/retired reserve and credited with 28 years, 11 months, and 19 days of total reserve service.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not provided any supporting documentation to substantiate that he should have been promoted after the revocation of his promotion to master sergeant.  Air Force Reserve enlisted members are promoted in accordance with Air Force Policy Directive 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotion, and the Air Force Reserve Enlisted Promotion Policy.  Pursuant to policy, an individual must hold a 7-skill level primary air force specialty code (PAFSC), have 24 months time in grade and 8 years of satisfactory service for retirement, complete the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Academy, and be a satisfactory participant in accordance with AFI 36-2254, Volume 1, Reserve Personnel Participation, for promotion to master sergeant.  In addition, an individual must be recommended by their assigned supervisor and approved for promotion by the promotion authority.  In this case, the applicant provided a promotion order, as well as a cancellation of the same promotion.  However, the command’s disapproval for recommendation of his promotion to master sergeant was not adequately disputed by the applicant.  

A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates his argument that he met all requirements for promotion to master sergeant; however, he is unable to substantiate his claim through documentation.  He was not adequately supported for promotion or re-enlistment by his command.  He would be able to clearly articulate his reasoning for his request if given the opportunity to present his case via teleconference.  

A complete copy of the applicant’s response 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 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 the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In response to the Air Force evaluation, the applicant concedes that he has no documentary evidence to support his arguments that he should have been promoted.  The applicant is reminded however that the burden of proof of an error or injustice rests with the applicant and, in view of the fact that other than his own assertions, he has provided no documentary evidence in support of his request, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  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 issues involved.  

________________________________________________________________

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-2013-00123 in Executive Session on 31 October 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member




The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00123 was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 January 2013, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 14 May 2013.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 May 2013.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 June 2013.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair






Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 00123

    Original file (BC 2013 00123.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 30 October 2003, the applicant was promoted to the permanent grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective 1 November 2003. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFRC/A1K recommends denial, indicating the applicant has not provided any supporting documentation to substantiate that he should have been promoted after the revocation of his promotion to master sergeant. In this case, the applicant provided a promotion order, as well as a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04813

    Original file (BC 2013 04813.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) enlisted promotion and demotion policy was folded into an active duty Air Force publication AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, 31 December 2009. Air Force Reserve enlisted members are promoted to chief master sergeant in accordance with AFPD 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotions and Air Force Reserve Enlisted Promotion Policy. Based on this...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04016

    Original file (BC-2012-04016.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Regarding the applicant’s request for promotion to chief master sergeant; Air Force Reserve personnel are promoted in accordance with AFPD 36-25 and Air Reserve Promotion Policy. The complete BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 26 March 2013 and 19 June 2013 for review and comment within 30...

  • 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 | CY2013 | BC-2013-01227

    Original file (BC-2013-01227 .txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    It is unclear why no medical documentation was provided or why the case was not completed. In this case, he is not eligible for active duty orders. We note that the Air Force offices of primary responsibility state the applicant’s medical condition was not found to be in the line of duty; therefore no eligibility for active duty orders or pay exists.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02153

    Original file (BC 2013 02153.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00072

    Original file (BC-2013-00072.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Regarding the applicant’s request that she be given a 20 year active duty retirement with full retirement benefits, A1K states that her medical case which included the applicable documentation that ultimately led to a finding of ILOD was appropriately reviewed and a determination was made on that case by the PEB. The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant certainly...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-02002

    Original file (BC-2012-02002.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequently, it was determined the former content of AFI 2503, Administrative Demotion of Airman, and AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, dated 6 Aug 02, would continue to be used as the procedural guidance to implement the AFR Enlisted Demotion and Promotion Policy. We took note of the applicant’s arguments regarding the validity of the demotion instructions ,however, we agree with AFRC/A1K recommendation that the use of the former AFI 36-2503 and Air 36-2502 as the procedural guidance...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03904

    Original file (BC-2011-03904.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-03904 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His official records be corrected to show he was promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective 4 Aug 07. According to information provided by the applicant, special order P-049, dated 4 Aug 07, the applicant was promoted to the grade of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | bc-2013-01202

    Original file (bc-2013-01202.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was set-up by Chief Master Sergeant M----- and the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR) Headquarters personnel in retaliation for filing a CI. On 2 Oct 06, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) disapproved the applicant’s application for retirement submitted on 31 Jan 06 and stated that retirement at this time was not considered in the best interest in the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket...