RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00677
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His current 3 year enlistment be changed to a 6 year enlistment.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The newly appointed Unit Career Advisor (UCA) failed to notify the unit commander that he was eligible for a 6 year enlistment and instead processed him for a 3 year enlistment.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of letters from his unit commander and UCA.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is a member of the Michigan Air National Guard (ANG).
On 13 Oct 2012, he reenlisted for 3 years.
ANG Instruction (ANGI) 36-2002, Enlistment and Reenlistment in the Air National Guard and as a Reserve of the Air Force, states in cases of contractual errors, the Force Support Squadron (FSS) will process a case file to the National Guard Bureau (NGB) outlining the facts of the situation, along with the individual airmans desire, the commanders recommendation and the FSS comments and recommendation; and that the airman may petition the Board if they do not agree with the final decision.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1PP recommends denial of the applicants request. A1P states the applicant has not exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. The applicant should first submit a request for correction of the contractual error to his FSS who will in-turn forward the application to NGB for decision as required by ANGI 36-2002. If the applicant does not agree with the decision, he should then submit a request to the Board for correction of records.
The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.
NGB/A1P concurs with the recommendation of A1PP and recommends denial. A1P states that the applicant needs to go through the FSS for processing to A1P for consideration.
The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
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 E).
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has not 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. The applicant has not provided evidence of actions on his part to obtain the relief he seeks through the proper administrative channels. The AFBCMR process is not intended as a substitute for the proper utilization of established channels, such as the local Force Support Squadron for the type of corrections he seeks. Until such time as he has exhausted all available administrative remedies, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief requested.
_____________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00677 in Executive Session on 19 Nov 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Jan 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Military Service Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 21 Mar 2013, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 Mar 2013.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00655
By letter dated 28 Jan 13, the applicants commander states that due to an administrative oversight the applicant signed a three year reenlistment contract; however, he should have been given the opportunity extend his enlistment for six years. Until such time as he has exhausted all available administrative remedies, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief requested. Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 21 Mar 13.
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 | 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-03031
JA states that based on the facts presented in the NGB opinions, JA finds their responses to be legally sufficient and concurs with the recommendations to deny the applicant's requests for corrective action related to ACP payments, Board# V0611A, AGR separation from ANG Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) consideration, and TERA. Counsels complete response is at Exhibit N. _______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF...
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-2012-02087
On 24 February 2012, the applicant received notification from the unit wing commander that he was recommending her for demotion to the grade of E-4, Senior Airman. Their interpretation of the instruction is the unit commander may recommend demotion of an enlisted ANG member under his/her command. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this application BC-2012-02087 in Executive Session on 23 January 2013, under...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01312
In support of her request, the applicant provides a counsels brief, copies of the paralegal interview, a request for reconsideration into the paralegal career field, paralegal accession disapproval, and letters of recommendation. Her legal counsel stated that four years is sufficient time to recoup its training investment in the Air Force; however, non-prior service ANG members are required to enlist for six years, not four, in accordance with ANGI 36-2002, Enlistment and Reenlistment in...
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-02900
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 applicants 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-2013-00685
On 3 Aug 10, the Vice Chief of Joint Staff signed an order amending the applicants separation from the ANG and transfer to the Air Force Reserve to reflect his discharge from the WYANG and as a Reserve of the Air Force effective 10 Oct 10, under the provisions of AFI 36-3209, para 2.25.2, ANG Unique Separations. In addition, no one had the authority to discharge the applicant from the Reserve of the Air Force (See SAF/IG Report at Exhibit B). According to AFI 36-3209, the authority to...