RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-03355
								INDEX CODE:  131.01, 131.05
	XXXXXXXXX					COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His date of rank (DOR) to the grade of senior airman (SrA - E-4) be changed from 13 June 1992 to December 1991.

He be provided additional supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt - E-5).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was recently credited with additional active duty time and his Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) was changed from 8 September 1989 to 11 March 1989, and this TAFMSD change resulted in his promotion to the grade of technical sergeant (TSgt - E-6) on 1 August 2006.  

His promotion to the grade of SrA should also have been changed from 13 June 1992 to December 1991.  With this change, he would have tested for promotion consideration to the grade of SSgt in 1992.  The missing time resulted in his missing test cycle 1992E5 and all the testing cycles that followed had he been selected for promotion to the grade of SSgt during this cycle.

In support of his appeal, he has provided a copy of a corrected Statement of Service, dated 20 June 2007.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant originally entered the Air Force (DIEUS) as an Air Force Reserve (AFR) member on 9 January 1985, and served with the AFR until he entered the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on 13 February 1990.  Upon entry into the RegAF, he was given a TAFMSD of 8 September 1989; however, he was recently awarded additional active duty days from his AFR service which changed his TAFMSD from 8 September 1989 to 11 March 1989.  

The applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of SSgt during cycle 98E5, and received a DOR of 1 September 1998.  After his TAFMSD was corrected to reflect 11 March 1989, he was supplementally considered for promotion to the grade of TSgt for cycle 06E6, and was rendered a select with a DOR of 1 August 2006.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of his request to change his DOR as a SrA to December 1991 as he did not meet minimum TIS/TIG requirements.  They have taken action to correct his SrA DOR to 11 March 1992, and referred his case to DFAS to correct his pay file.  They also recommend denial of his request for supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of SSgt, as the added points are not sufficient enough to render him a select for any previous cycle.

Based on the adjusted/corrected TAFMSD, the applicant’s DOR to SrA should have been corrected to reflect a DOR of 11 March 1992.  Airmen serving in the grade of airman first class (A1C - E-3) are promoted to the grade of SrA once they have 36 months time-in-service (TIS) and 20 months time-in-grade (TIG), or 28 months TIG, whichever occurs first.  Since his DOR as an A1C was 13 February 1990 and his TAFMSD is now 11 March 1989, the earliest date he could have been promoted to SrA was 11 March 1992 (36 months TIS).

Based on the applicant’s DOR as a SrA of 13 June 1992, the first time he was considered for promotion to the grade of SSgt was cycle 94A5.  Since the DOR requirement for cycle 93A5 was 1 February 1992, he would not have been considered for promotion to the grade of SSgt any earlier with a DOR of 11 March 1992 due to insufficient TIG.

TIS points are calculated by awarding 1/6 of a point for each month of TAFMS up to 20 years, and TIG points are calculated by awarding ½ point for each month in grade up to 10 years, as of the first day of the last month of the promotion cycle.  Days equaling 15 or more count as ½ point; less than 15 days are dropped.  The applicant would not have become a select for SSgt on any earlier cycles as he would receive 1 additional point towards TIS and 1.5 additional points towards TIG for each cycle.  He missed promotion on all previous cycles by more than 2.5 points.

The AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In an undated letter, the applicant reiterated his contention that based on Air Force Pamphlet 36-2241, paragraph 15.41.2.SrA, which states that A1Cs are promoted to SrA with either 36 months TIS and 20 months of TIG, or 28 months of TIG, whichever occurs first, he is in the 28 months of TIG category from his TAFMSD of 11 March 1989.  Since his DOR was incorrect, he missed the E592 testing cycle and all cycles proceeding [sic] had he been afforded the chance to test.

The applicant’s complete response is at attachment E.

________________________________________________________________

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 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.  The Board notes that AFPC has taken action to correct his SrA DOR to 11 March 1992, and referred his case to DFAS to correct his pay file.  However, evidence has been presented that he did not meet the minimum TIS/TIG requirements to change his DOR as a SrA to December 1991.  Evidence has also been presented that his request for supplemental consideration should be denied as the added points resulting from his TAFMSD change are not sufficient enough to render him a select for any previous SSgt cycle.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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-2007-03355 in Executive Session on 17 January 2008, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 07, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29 Oct 07.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Nov 07.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.