RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02472 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her promotion to technical sergeant (E-6) be reinstated with an effective date of 1 Mar 10. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her deputy commander did not have the authority to withhold her promotion to technical sergeant because she was not on G-series orders. She believes the commander did not have the authority to authorize her stripe to be red lined since it was not properly withheld the first time; a demotion order should have been accomplished instead. The 72 ABW/IG and the 72 ABW/ADSC confirmed these findings. In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of the promotion withhold memorandums. Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ___________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Dec 03. Nonrecommending, Deferring, and Withholding Promotions: IAW AFI 36-2502, para 4.2, the action may be initiated and approved by the unit commander for Airman in the grades AB - TSgt. Unit Commanders must inform airmen of adverse actions in writing or verbally before promotion effective date. The notification memorandum must include reasons, dates, occurrences, and duration of the action. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to technical sergeant; however, her promotion was placed in withhold on 24 Feb 10 due to her being under military/civil investigation. DPSOE notes the applicant’s contention that the withhold action was not accomplished by the unit commander per the governing AFI; however, her commander explains in her 21 Apr 10 memorandum that an admin error occurred where someone who was not on G-series orders signed the withhold action. The commander also explains that she was fully aware of and approved the withhold action. Therefore, since the commander approved the action and the applicant’s promotion was still in withhold status; the commander “officially” nonrecommended her for promotion making the demotion action unnecessary. At that point, the tentative promotion was merely removed. The DPSOE complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by reiterating her original contentions; however, she states that Lt Col X is a personnelist who is extremely knowledgeable of the promotion AFI. Lt Col X should have known the commander must be on G-series orders in order to withhold a promotion. She was not notified by the commander either in writing or verbally regarding her stripe being withheld. The 72 FSS/FSMPM told her the group had to allow her to pin-on her and then accomplish a demotion order. The governing AFI states that withholding action is taken after promotion selection but before the effective date of promotion. Therefore, her stripe was not withheld by a commander before the promotion date and is not retroactive. She states the reason she received a letter of reprimand with an unfavorable information file; a referral evaluation, and no decorations was due to obtaining a Common Access Card (CAC) when she was not authorized to do so. However, she believes her chain of command mislead her by allowing other members of the unit to obtain a CAC 30 days prior to a promotion to prevent them from driving back from a geographically-separated unit and her wing commander allowed the entire base to obtain a CAC early in the month of April so they did not have to go to the Military Personnel Flight during an exercise. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a review of the facts and circumstances of this case, we believe that based on a past practice by the Military Personnel Flight, the applicant was led to believe that attaining a new ID card a few days early would not be a problem. In this regard, as noted by a former senior NCO assigned to the applicant’s unit w ho is now serving as a first sergeant, members who were promoted on 1 Nov 09 were issued new ID cards 3-4 days prior to the actual promotion effective date to alleviate possible setbacks during an upcoming Operatio nal Readiness Inspection. Therefore, we believe that reasonable doubt exists as to whether or not withholding her promotion to technical sergeant was excessively harsh in this case. Accordingly, we believe the ben efit of doubt in this matter should be resolved in her favor and that it would be an injustice for the applicant to continue to suffer the adverse impacts of withholding her promotion. Therefore, we recommend that the records be corrected as indicated below. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that she was promoted to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) effective and with a date of rank of 1 March 2010. ________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-02472 in Executive Session on 6 Jan 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2010-02472 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 7 Jul 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 25 Aug 10. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Sep 10. Exhibit D. letter, Applicant, dated 17 Sep 10.