RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-03818 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) with an original date of rank (DOR) and effective date of 1 July 2010. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: There was insufficient documentation as to why her rank was deferred. Her request to obtain her original DOR was rejected by her commander due to timeliness. She was deployed for 10 months and following her return her husband PCS’d to Osan AB Korea for a year. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty on 18 April 2006. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE states the applicant was tentatively selected for promotion to SSgt during cycle 09E5. She received promotion sequence number (PSN) 13434.0 which would have incremented 1 July 2010. The applicant received two MFRs and one Letter of Counseling (LOC) between 2 April 2010 and 21 June 2010. On 29 June 2010, she was informed that her promotion was being deferred for a period of three months for unacceptable behavior or performance standards; specifically, violations of AFI 36-2903 (Dress and Personal Appearance of AF Personnel); failure to report to place of duty on time; and violation of AFI 36-3003 (Military Leave Program). She acknowledged receipt on 29 June 2010 and provided a response on 16 July 2010. On 12 March 2012, the applicant requested reinstatement of her original DOR but her request was denied. The applicant contends there was insufficient documentation as to why her promotion was being deferred; however, the notification of deferment letter clearly states the reason for the action and length of deferment. In accordance with AFI 36-2502, paragraphs 4.2.1.1. and 4.2.3., commanders inform airmen of adverse actions in writing or verbally before promotion effective date (confirm verbal notification in writing within five duty days). The notification memorandum must include reasons, dates, occurrences, and duration of the action. Deferring a promotion delays the promotion and pay past the original effective date to allow the commander to determine if the airman meets acceptable behavior or performance standards. The deferral duration is for one to three months. The promotion authority must make a promotion decision, in writing, upon completion of the deferral period. The DOR and effective date is the first day of the month after the deferral period ends and cannot be retroactive. Since her original DOR was 1 July 2010, this deferment would now make her DOR and effective date of promotion to SSgt 1 October 2010. Besides delaying her pin-on and payment for SSgt, the deferment also delayed her eligibility for promotion consideration to technical sergeant (TSgt) from the 12E6 cycle to the 13E6 cycle as the DOR eligibility for cycle 12E6 was 1 August 2010. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 November 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, no response has been received by this office. _________________________________________________________________ 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. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of an 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-2012-0818 in Executive Session on 8 May 2013, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-03818 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 July 2012, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 1 October 2012 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 November 2012.