RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00803
						COUNSEL:  NONE
  XXXXXXXXXXXXX					HEARING DESIRED: YES

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he was promoted to the 
grade of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) in July 2009.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a contracting specialist with the 102nd Fighter Wing in 
MA.  He was five years short of achieving 20 years to qualify 
for retirement and applied for a SMSgt position with the 
Mississippi Air National Guard (MS ANG). Shortly after his 
arrival, records were manipulated to allow another individual to 
be promoted to the grade of SMSgt. 

He appealed this matter to the MS ANG Adjutant General.  He was 
advised that commanders are allowed to move personnel around as 
they see fit to best serve the mission and referred him to the 
Board.

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, copies of his special orders, job announcement, a 
letter from his former supervisor and various other documents 
associated with his request.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Special Order AB-76, dated 26 Apr 2006, shows the applicant was 
assigned to the MS ANG in an Active Guard Reserve (AGR) SMSgt 
position. 

On 5 Jul 2007, he was promoted to the grade of Master Sergeant 
(MSgt).

On 1 Nov 2010, the applicant retired from the ANG in the grade 
of MSgt with 20 years, 10 months and 21 days of total service 
for retired pay.  

Eligibility criteria for promotion to the grade of SMSgt in 
accordance with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, includes 
commander’s recommendation and the Adjutant General’s approval 
in writing.  States are capped on the number of promotions to 
SMSgt and chief master sergeant and are prohibited from 
exceeding the cap.   

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PP recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  The 
applicant did not provide a commander-endorsed promotion 
recommendation and there is no evidence to support the 
applicant’s claim that he was recommended for promotion.  ANGI 
36-2502, states first sergeants or immediate supervisors will 
not have promotion authority and meeting minimum eligibility 
criteria only indicates that a member can be considered eligible 
for promotion.  Promotion is not a reward for past performance, 
but recognition of the member’s potential to successfully serve 
in the higher grade.  Prior to promotion to any grade, the 
immediate commander must first recommend the airman.  

The complete A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

NGB/A1P concurs with A1PP and recommends the relief not be 
granted based on the ANGI governing directive and lack of 
documentation provided by the applicant to support an injustice 
occurred.

The complete A1P evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S 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.  This made future promotion opportunities as drafted 
on his assignment orders impossible.  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.  

He and others advised NGB of the creative force management 
practices while he was on active duty, yet they chose to do 
nothing.  

He deserves to be promoted because he did an excellent job and 
ran the base contracting activity in a fashion over and above 
the grade on his assignment orders.  He carried out several 
additional responsibilities that were not historically a part of 
the position.  In return, he was betrayed on a manpower document 
that ruined any chances of upward growth.  There would have been 
no way for the commander to draft a letter of promotion 
afterwards since an authorization for him was no longer 
available.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F.  

________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.  After a 
thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s 
complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us 
that the former member's service records should be corrected to 
show he was promoted to any grade higher than that reflected in 
his military records. While the applicant argues that the SMSgt 
position was given to someone else, we note that the job 
announcement submitted with his application, clearly states that 
promotion to SMSgt is contingent upon availability of control 
grades.  Therefore, 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 that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of 
proof that he has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In 
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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00803 in Executive Session on 12 Dec 2013 under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Military Service Records.
Exhibit C.  Letter, NGB/A1PP, dated 4 Mar 2013.
Exhibit D.  Letter, NGB/A1P, dated 8 Mar 2013.  
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 2013.  
Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 11 Apr 2013.  




											
		Panel Chair


4


4