RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-01079 

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her date of rank (DOR) be changed from 13 April 2015 to 6 December 2014.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

On 6 December 2014, she met a position vacancy board and was recommended for promotion on 8 December 2014.  However, due to an administrative oversight at wing and state headquarters levels her promotion recommendation package was not processed by the National Guard Bureau (NGB).  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Alaska Air National Guard in the rank of lieutenant colonel (Lt Col).

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/A1PO recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. 

A Federal Recognition Examining Board (FREB) was convened on 6 December 2014 and the applicant was recommended for promotion on 8 December 2014.  She was informed by her Wing leadership that the promotion package was forwarded to the state headquarters for submission to NGB.  Her wing received notification that she was to meet the 2015 Reserve Officer Promotion Management Act (ROPMA) promotion board.  Upon receiving the notification, an inquiry was made with the state headquarters regarding the applicant’s promotion request and it was discovered that the applicant’s promotion package was never received by NGB/A1PO.  A subsequent promotion package was submitted to NGB/A1PO on 13 April 2015 with a FREB dated the same day.  The applicant’s promotion package was reviewed and was found valid for consideration for promotion on 14 April 2015 and the applicant was removed from the 2015 ROPMA list.  The applicant was subsequently placed on the ANG May 2015 promotion list with a DOR of 13 April 2015.

According to ANGI 36-2504, Federal Recognition of Promotion in the Air National Guard (ANG) and as a Reserve of the Air Force below the Grade of General Officer, the results of the FREB are only good for 60 days.  If the Federal recognition has not been requested by the Adjutant General within 60 days of the FREB, a new board must be convened.

NGB/A1PO recommends disapproval noting that a valid promotion package was not confirmed received by them until 13 April 2015.

A complete copy of the NGB/A1PO evaluation is at Exhibit B.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

She understands that her request violates the criteria in ANGI 36-2504. However, she believes there was a complete failure at all levels of leadership to ensure her promotion was processed correctly with the date of 6 December 2014.  Although she could have followed up on the January 2015 promotion list online to confirm her name was submitted, she feels her leadership failed her at several levels.  She was not aware to check the website to ensure her name was there, but she did inquire several times to the Wing leadership to ensure her package was being processed.  Obviously, her unit did not check to confirm that she was on the promotion list or the mistake would have been caught within the 60-days.  Instead, their response to her was always that the process took several months and for her to be patient.

She tried to find out who would be the person responsible at state headquarters to send in (and confirm receipt of) the promotion packages and was told the Chief who was responsible was in the process of retiring, so nobody could be held accountable, and no confirmation e-mails could be located.  She believes this is unacceptable from a leadership and inspector general standpoint.  She was left with an over four-months delay on her DOR, as well as a delay on her pin-on date because leadership did not do their job to process her promotion package.

She is not relinquishing all personal responsibility for the fact that she did not personally check to make sure her leadership did their job.  However, she believes it was her supervisor’s responsibility to recommend her for promotion and follow through with the process.

The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit 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 an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, in judging the merits of the case and the Board majority agrees with the opinion and recommendation of the NGB/A1PO and adopt its rationale as the basis for its conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  While the applicant states there was a complete failure at all levels of leadership to ensure her promotion was processed correctly with the date of 6 December 2014, other than her uncorroborated assertions, she has not provided substantial evidence that would warrant an exception to policy.  The Board majority believes changing the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) without sufficient evidence would be unfair to others similarly situated and establish a basis for circumventing the procedures in place.  Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, the Board majority concludes the applicant has failed to sustain her burden of establishing that she has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board majority finds no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 on 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-2016-01079 in Executive Session on 25 May 2017 and 21 June 2017, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application.  Mr.  voted to grant, but does not desire to submit a minority report.  The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-01079 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 16, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, NGB/A1PO, dated 14 Jul 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Dec 16.
	Exhibit E.  Email from Applicant, dated 22 Mar 17.

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.