RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2018-02736

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

  	HEARING: YES

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His promotion to the grade of technical sergeant be backdated to May 16.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He has been promotion eligible since 2015 and filling a technical sergeant billet.  He was given promotion requirements that fall beyond AFI 36-2502, Enlisted Promotions.    

In 2015 and 2016, his supervisor indicated she would be submitting a promotion package.  However, changes to participation, which were beyond the regulation were the reasons why he was not promoted.  

He attempted to engage with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) Region 8 and Reserve leadership and filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint.  

On 25 May 17, his supervisor sent a new expectation letter which indicated meeting requirements was not synonymous with obtaining an endorsement for promotion.  As of this date, he has not received any feedback on what is required for promotion as required by AFI 36-2254v1, Reserve Personnel Participation.  

The applicant provides a copy of a draft enlisted performance report (EPR).  He does not want to include the EPR appeal with his request for grade correction but includes the evaluation to substantiate his assertion on improper practices for evaluations and promotions.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a technical sergeant in the Air Force Reserve, with date of rank (DOR) and effective date for promotion of 1 Sep 18.  

The applicant provides e-mail communique with his supervisor.  On 12 May 16, she advised she would submit a promotion package for the month.  However, on 13 May 16, she advised he was not recommended for promotion in May 16 due to not completing the required inactive duty training (IDT).  On 6 Nov 16, she advised he was not recommended for promotion since he had not completed any additional professional military education (PME) since his promotion to staff sergeant in 2014.   

In a letter dated 1 May 17, the AFOSI 8th Field Investigations Region advised the applicant a review of his complaint was conducted.  While there was confusion, it was determined he was not unjustly denied a promotion opportunity since promotion is not guaranteed by simply meeting minimum standards.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1K recommends denial.  Even though his supervisor indicated she would nominate him for promotion, it was ultimately up to the promotion authority per AFI 36-2502.  While there was miscommunication, his supervisor informed him of the reasons he was not selected for promotion.  The AFI does not require formal feedback after a promotion non-selection.    

On 18 Sep 18, the AFOSI Region 8 Commander stated there was no confusion on their part on his expectations or the promotion process and it was made clear what he needed to do.  The applicant was promoted on 1 Sep 18 after he demonstrated performance.  The complete advisory, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.  

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 11 Oct 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFRC/A1K and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice, and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2018-02736 in Executive Session on 13 Nov 18:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 11 Jul 18.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFRC/A1K, w/atchs, dated 3 Oct 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 11 Oct 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.