RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-02153 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt/E-7). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was overlooked for promotion consideration in Fiscal Year 2007, and should have been promoted six months after being placed in his position. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: On 23 Apr 07, the applicant was reassigned from the Alabama Air National Guard to the 78th Civil Engineering (CE) Group at Robbins AFB, GA. According to documentation submitted by the applicant, on 29 May 07, his commander non-selected him for promotion to MSgt, indicating he needed six months time-on-station (TOS) to be considered for promotion. On 19 Dec 07, the applicant was reassigned from the CE Group at Robbins AFB to HQ ARPC, due to being identified as “surplus to requirements.” On 8 Jan 08, the applicant was reassigned from HQ ARPC to the 55th Combat Communications Squadron at Robbins AFB, GA. On 8 Mar 09, the applicant received individual counseling for failing to attend a mandatory medical appointment. On 5 Apr 09, the applicant received individual counseling for his attitude toward the Commander Support Staff personnel while conducting his annual fitness assessment. On 11 Jul 09, the applicant’s supervisor chose not to recommend him for reenlistment, and his commander did not select him for reenlistment. The reasons for this action were the applicant’s failure to make progress in the Air Force physical training program and due to lack of unit productivity in the Orderly Room. On 12 Jul 09, the applicant acknowledged his non-selection for reenlistment and did not submit an appeal by the required appeal date. On 13 Jan 10, the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve in the grade of Technical Sergeant, to await retired pay at age 60. 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 applicant was, in fact, considered for promotion on 1 May 07, but not selected. Air Force Reserve enlisted members are promoted in accordance with (IAW) AF Policy Directive 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotion, and Air Force Reserve Enlisted Promotion Policy. IAW AFPD 36-25, individuals must be or have been a 7-skill level in their Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC), have eight years of satisfactory service for retirement, completed the command Non-commissioned Officer (NCO) Academy, and be recommended by their supervisor and approved by the promotion authority. The member must also be able to obtain 24-months of retainability, be a satisfactory participant IAW AFI 36-2264VI, Reserve Personnel Participation, and meet Air Force physical fitness standards for promotion. There is no Air Force Reserve enlisted promotion policy that guarantees a member will or must be promoted six months after being placed into a higher graded position. The applicant did not provide documentation to support his contention he should have been promoted. A complete copy of the AFRC/A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Aug 13 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D). ________________________________________________________________ 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 (OPR) and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief. ________________________________________________________________ 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-2013-02153 in Executive Session on 6 Mar 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel Chair Member Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Apr 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 30 Jul 13. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Aug 13. Panel Chair