RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-05095

  						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt), and receive retired pay and benefits from the date of his retirement.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He served in the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt), with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Feb 00, was eligible for promotion to CMSgt and was assigned to a CMSgt position.  However, due to deployment he was not offered promotion to CMSgt until he returned, approximately six months after first becoming eligible.  His deployed commander told him he would be promoted upon his return stateside.  When offered promotion, he told his leadership he would stay in the ANG and accept the promotion if his date of rank (DOR) to CMSgt was backdated to the date he was qualified for promotion.  His request was denied.  He has seen many instances where member’s promotions were backdated.  He knows of another ANG member who was promoted to CMSgt, served in that rank for only a couple of weeks, and was allowed to retire in grade.  His commander only held him to the full two-year active duty service commitment (ADSC) associated with promotion to CMSgt to ensure he was available for a future deployment.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served in the grade of Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt) in the Air National Guard during the matter under review.

Under Special Order NY-046, dated 2 Feb 00, the applicant was promoted to the grade of SMSgt with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Feb 00.  

According to the documentation submitted by the applicant, under Special Order TE-0239, dated 22 Feb 02, he was deployed to Incirlick Air Base, Turkey, in support of Operation NORTHEN WATCH on or about 25 Feb 02 for a 143 day period.   

Under Reserve Order EK-6177, dated 30 Apr 03, the applicant was placed on the Reserve Retired List, effective 3 Feb 03, awaiting eligibility for retired pay at age 60. 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C.    

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PP recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice.  In accordance with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen, dated 25 Aug 00, a number of requirements must be met for promotion, which include:

a.  Paragraph 1.1., “The authority to promote ANG airmen as Reserves of the Air Force is delegated to the State Adjutant General IAW policies and procedures established by this instruction and its supplements.”  

b.  Paragraph 1.1.2., “Prior to promotion to any grade, the immediate commander must first recommend the airman.  This recommendation must be based on a period of time sufficient to permit a substantive evaluation of the airman's total performance.”  

c.  Paragraph 1.2.5., “ANGI 36-2101 establishes service commitments, which are incurred upon promotion to one of the top three enlisted grades.” 

d.  Paragraph 1.4.8., “Promotions are effective on a stated date (usually the date of the promotion order or AF Form 2096) and may not be retroactively granted.”

The applicant contends he met all requirements for promotion to CMSgt at the time of his retirement, however, he did not submit documentation to support his contention.  Members are not entitled to promotion based solely on meeting the eligibility requirements, but must be recommended for promotion by their commander and approved by their state’s Adjutant General.  In addition, the applicant twice asked for his promotion to be backdated, which is in violation of policy.  Finally, members promoted to CMSgt incur an additional service commitment.  The applicant failed to submit his application in a timely manner and failed to provide supporting documentation which shows an error or injustice.

A complete copy of the NGB/A1PP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In further support of his original request the applicant submitted a rebuttal response to the Air Force evaluation, taking exception to the statement in the Air Force evaluation which said he did not provide any documentation showing that he met all the requirements for promotion to CMSgt at the time of his retirement.  He outlines how he was qualified due to his primary Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) skill-level, time in service (TIS), time in grade (TIG), had completed Senior Non-commissioned Officer Academy, and had sufficient service time in the ANG.  Finally, he contends his deployed commander had served as the applicant’s directs supervisor in the Standardization and Evaluations (DOV) for over two years, had direct information of the applicant’s ability and the CMSgt position on the unit manning document (UMD).  Unfortunately, that individual has since passed away.  

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years prior to receipt of the application, we believe a reasonable date of discovery was more than three years prior to receipt of the application.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-05095 in Executive Session on 21 Feb 17 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 15, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1PP, dated 19 May 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Jun 16.
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Jul 16, w/atchs.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.