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. 4 5