ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2019-01420

xxxxxxxxxxxxx	COUNSEL:  XXXXXXXXXX
	
	HEARING REQUESTED:  NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

The Board reconsider her request, amended to read:

1.  Promotion to the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7) with an effective date of 3 Mar 14.
2.  An adjusted retired rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective the date of her retirement.
3.  Removal or correction of any and all records necessary to effectuate the granted relief and any other corrections necessary to provide “full and effective relief.”
4.  All pay, allowances, compensation, emoluments, or other pecuniary benefits to which she is entitled as a result of any records correction.

RESUME OF THE CASE

The applicant is a retired Air National Guard technical sergeant (E-6).  

On 13 Oct 18, the applicant submitted a DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552, requesting correction to her rank and grade to reflect master sergeant (E-7), effective 1 Dec 15, and receipt of appropriate back pay.

On 21 Nov 19, the Board considered and denied her request to correct her records to reflect promotion to the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective 1 Dec 15, finding the applicant had provided insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to justify relief.  Documentation revealed the applicant was unable to meet the retraining approval requirements and concurred with overgrade conditions on two separate occasions over a four-year period.  Additionally, the Board noted the wing Inspector General’s (IG) dismissal of the applicant’s request to redress her overgrade status and promotion to the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7), finding no credible evidence of violation of law instruction, regulation, or policy.

For an accounting of the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit F. 

On 31 Aug 21, the United States Court of Federal Claims remanded the case, instructing the AFBCMR to:

1.	Rescind its 2019 decision; 
2.	Strike or rescind the NGB/A1PP advisory opinion that did not comply with Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 4.2.2.4;
3.	Assign the remanded case to a case examiner who was not assigned to the applicant’s previous 2018 AFBCMR application;
4.	Empanel three member who did not decide the applicant’s 2018 application;
5.	Afford the applicant or her counsel an opportunity to submit additional evidence and arguments;
6.	Consider her application in accordance with the board’s otherwise applicable procedures and powers, to include:
a.	Explaining whether the unit complied with Air National Guard Instruction (ANGI) 36-2101, Assignments within the Air National Guard (ANG) (10 Apr 12), paragraphs 4.2 and 4.2.1 by the applicant remaining in an overgrade condition status effective 1 Jan 12 for a period exceeding 24 months and again on 12 Jul 15 (by NGB Form 36-11, backdated to 1 Oct 14 through 10 Jun 16); 
b.	Explaining whether the unit complied with ANGI 36-2101, paragraph 2.18.11; 
c.	Explaining whether the unit complied with ANGI 36-2502, Promotion of Airmen (17 Jun 10), paragraph 1.1.4 and/or its successor regulation AFI 36-2502, Enlisted Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs (12 Dec 14), paragraphs 10.1.11.2–3; 
d.	Explaining whether the unit complied with ANGI 36-2101 paragraphs 2.18.2.2 and 2.18.4; 
e.	Explaining whether the unit complied with the requirements articulated in Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 1304.20, Enlisted Personnel Management System (EPMS) (28 Jul 05), paragraph 4.2.2 and Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotion (7 May 14), paragraph 3.1; 
f.	Addressing the existence of any legal or factual error for all remand items, to fully evaluate and consider whether any remand item, individually or collectively, constitutes an injustice necessitating correction. 

The United States Court of Federal Claims remand order is at Exhibit G.

On 4 Oct 21, counsel, on behalf of the applicant, submitted additional evidence for consideration and again contended the applicant’s command committed material error and injustice by violating procedures requiring timely, adequate resolution of the applicant’s duty position overgrade status and optimum career progression.  In support, counsel reiterated the promotion eligibility requirements found in DoDD 1304.20, AFPD 36-25, AFI 36-2502, ANGI 35-2502, and ANGI 2101.   Additionally, counsel outlined the applicant’s military service previous to her eligibility for promotion to the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7). 

Counsel further contended, on 28 Sep 11, the applicant was fully qualified for two 7-level Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC), 3D071 (Knowledge Operations Management) and 3A171.  In Jan 12, the applicant was filling a position tied to 3D071, and due to enlisted grade restructuring and changes in the Unit Manpower Document (UMD) outside of her control, the authorized grade for her duty position was downgraded to the rank and grade of staff sergeant (E-5).  As a result, the applicant was in overgrade status rendering her ineligible for promotion, and would set off a chain reaction of promotion-related issues for several years until her retirement.

On 29 Feb 12, the applicant and her commander signed NGB Form 36-11, Statement of Understanding for Excess/Overgrade Condition.  The form backdated the effective start of her overgrade status to 1 Jan 12, with an expiration date of 31 Dec 14, a period of 35 months and 30 days.  The NGB Form 36-11 further stated: “I understand that prior to my expiration date of the OVERGRADE condition, my unit and I share the responsibility to locate and place me in a vacant position (within the AFSC for which I am currently qualified) which is commensurate with my grade.  If a valid position is not available by my expiration date, I further understand that: 1) I must be reassigned for retraining purposes to another vacant position commensurate with my grade or, 2) My unit commander may request an extension to my expiration date, or 3) I will be administratively demoted to the authorized grade of my current position, or 4) I will be involuntarily separated from the Air National Guard.”

On 1 Mar 13, the applicant contacted her flight commander regarding her position being grandfathered.  He indicated Active Guard Reserve (AGR) and technician personnel were protected from enlisted grade review, and were moved to under-graded positions to protect vulnerable Drill Status Guardsmen (DSG) such as herself, and the commander should play the shell game to keep her safe.  The applicant emailed her commander with the information of a possible position which would protect her, but there is no indication the commander answered the email.

On 22 Nov 13, the applicant completed the Noncommissioned Officer Academy course and met the general promotion eligibility criteria for the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7); however, because she was still in an unresolved overgrade status, she could not be promoted.  On 31 Dec 13, the applicant’s status as overgrade met the 24-month mark, and she was undergoing a Medical Evaluation Board review, which would later find her fit for duty with a “C2” Assignment Limitation Code (ALC).

The applicant was indirectly converted from the 3D071 AFSC to 3A171 on 20 May 14.  On this same day, she was notified her AFSC would again be converted, to 3S011, in Oct 14, and she would be required to retrain.  She still remained qualified for other duty positions within the 3D071 AFSC.  On 1 Oct 14, the applicant’s position converted to 3S011; however, due to medical duty limiting restrictions, she could not attend training to obtain the new AFSC.

On 12 Jul 15, the applicant and her new commander signed a new NGB Form 36-11, with a backdated effective date of 1 Oct 14, and an expiration date of 10 Jun 16, which was the applicant’s Expiration Term of Service (ETS) date.  On 8 Mar 16, her commander requested an exception to policy to extend the applicant’s ETS by 14 months, explaining because her current duty AFSC was “incorrect” she could not reenlist and medical duty limiting conditions prevented the applicant from traveling to technical school to obtain the new AFSC.  On or about 3 Mar 17, the commander signed the applicant’s Enlisted Performance Report for the period 1 Dec 14 – 30 Nov 16, marking that the applicant was “promotion eligible” and further recommended she be promoted.

Thereafter, the applicant made several attempts to address the events that halted her career progression and prevented her from being promoted to the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7), requesting an appointment with her group commander in Aug 17, and emailing her wing commander requesting relief, attaching a timeline with exhibits in support.  There is no indication the wing commander responded to her request.

The applicant filed an IG complaint on 1 Mar 18, asserting her command had violated ANGI 36-2101 by failing to resolve her overgrade condition within 24 months and reassigning her to the first available position commensurate with her grade, and her concerns presented to her chain of command and requests for redress had gone unanswered.  The IG complaint was handled by an individual who previously served as the applicant’s unit commander during much of the time relevant to the allegations and arguments raised.  He also signed her NGB Form 36-11 in 2012 and was her commander during that first 24-month period through Feb 14.  On 10 Apr 18, he dismissed the applicant’s complaint citing a provision that allows dismissal, “If the complaint analysis reveals the complainant has not brought forth credible evidence of a violation of law, instruction, regulation, or policy” while conceding the applicant “could have possibly been placed into a different position to possibly satisfy the AFSC requirement for promotion.”  Ultimately, the basis for dismissal was “there is no documentation stating your commander supported promotion to master sergeant.”  Subsequently, the applicant emailed him regarding his position as her commander during the relevant period and whether he should have referred her complaint.  He agreed; however, he did not respond to further emails on the subject.

Further, in Apr 18, the Disability Evaluation System process found the applicant physically unfit for continued duty and the Secretary of the Air Force directed her permanent retirement with a 40 percent disability rating, and the applicant was separated on 28 May 18.

The applicant submitted a DD Form 149, to the AFBCMR on 13 Oct 18, requesting adjustment to the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7), effective 1 Dec 15, with appropriate back pay.  The AFBCMR requested an advisory opinion from the National Guard Bureau Force Management Branch (NGB/A1PP) which was forwarded to the applicant for comment on or about 23 Jul 19.  The advisory opinion was signed, and evidently drafted, by a master sergeant (E-7) in violation of AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.2.2.4..  The applicant submitted a rebuttal to the advisory opinion on or about 26 Aug 19.  The AFBCMR panel convened on 21 Nov 19 and voted to deny the application, concurring with the rationale and recommendation of the advisory opinion.

On 2 Dec 20, the applicant filed a complaint in the United States Court of Federal Claims, and on 31 Aug 21, the case was remanded via an order instructing the AFBCMR to, among other things, evaluate specific regulatory violations at the heart of this case.

Finally, the applicant requests the AFBCMR correct her records to reflect (a) promotion to the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7) with an effective date of 3 Mar 14; and (b) an adjusted retired rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7) effective the date of her retirement, as well as removal or correction of any and all records necessary to effectuate the granted relief and any other corrections necessary to provide “full and effective relief” in accordance with AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.10.2..  She additionally requests all pay, allowances, compensation, emoluments, or other pecuniary benefits to which she is entitled as a result of any records correction.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit H.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY

In accordance with AFI 36-2502:

10.1.3.1. The authority to approve promotions to the grades of MSgt, SMSgt, and CMSgt is the Adjutant General (TAG). TAG may delegate authority to promote airmen in these grades to the State Assistant Adjutant General for Air (AAG for Air). However, the AAG [may] delegate this authority to the State Director of Staff (DoS). This authority cannot be delegated below the DoS. There will be no exceptions to this policy.

10.1.15. Eligibility Requirements.

	10.1.15.2. Must be assigned to a valid UMD position with an authorized grade greater than or equal to the grade for which the member is being recommended, except as indicated in paragraph 10.5., ANG STEP I Promotion Program and 10.9., ANG STEP II Promotion Program.

Title 10, United States Code § 10112 (10 USC 10112) – Air National Guard: when a component of the Air Force:

The Air National Guard while in the service of the United States is a component of the Air Force.

Title 32, United States Code § 101(32 USC 101) – Definitions:

(6) Air National Guard means that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive that – 
(A)	Is an air force;
(B)	Is trained, and has its officers appointed under the sixteenth clause of section 8, article I of the Constitution;
(C)	Is organized, armed, and equipped wholly or partly at Federal expense; and
(D)	Is federally recognized

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

NGB/A1PP recommends denying the application.  Due to a change in the UMD, the applicant became overgrade on 1 Jan 12 and was retained in overgrade status until her retirement.  The applicant contended the unit failed to correct her overgrade status and denied her career progression opportunities.  Although she was qualified to promote to the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7) in Nov 13, she was not eligible due to her overgrade status.  The applicant further contented she was forced to retrain when her overgrade position converted to another AFSC; however, she was unable to meet the retraining approval requirements.  The applicant believed she could have been reassigned to six different positions, but instead those positions were filled by members without the requisite AFSC or skill level, or by junior members not eligible to promote.  Finally, the applicant contended the IG acknowledged she should have been reassigned, but there was no documentation stating her commander supported a promotion.  Per the applicant, her commander recommended promotion on her Enlisted Performance Report.  

Specifically addressing the issues raised upon remand:

In accordance with ANGI 36-2101, paragraph 4.2.1., DSG and AGR personnel and officers below the grade of colonel, who become overgrade as a result of NGB-directed realignment, reorganization, or UMD change may be retained for 24 months or 20 years of satisfactory service (or TAFMS for AGRs), whichever comes first.  The unit did not comply by allowing the applicant to remain in an overgrade condition status exceeding 24 months, or 20 years satisfactory service.  The applicant was kept in overgrade status from 1 Jan 12 – 10 Jun 16.  To retain a member in overgrade status beyond 24 months requires NGB/A1PP approval, which was not requested or received.

In accordance with ANGI 36-2101, para 2.18.11., Any member assigned in an excess or overgrade status must be reassigned to the first available position commensurate with their grade and for which they are qualified.  There is evidence which shows positions were available within the wing commensurate with the applicant’s AFSC, which would have removed her from overgrade status.

In accordance with AFI 36-2502, (12 Dec 14) para 10.1.11.2., Commanders will ensure their personnel meet all promotion criteria as outlined in this instruction prior to promotion; and para 10.1.11.3., commanders will execute a well-conceived, viable personnel force management to equitably distribute the progressive development and upward mobility of their assigned personnel. There is no evidence the applicant’s commander had a force management plan in place to allow for her progressive development and upward mobility.

In accordance with ANGI 36-2101 para 2.18.2.2., A copy of the signed NGB Form 36-11, will be provided to the servicing Force Support Squadron. The commander and member must sign the form. If a member refuses to sign the NGB Form 36-11, the commander will write ― Member Refused to Sign in the member’s signature block.  It is incumbent on the unit commander to keep members informed of their status and to continually work with the member to rectify the excess or overgrade condition.  There is no evidence the unit commander took any action to rectify the applicant’s overgrade condition.  In her IG complaint, the applicant attested she was told by her leadership there were no available positions to correct her overgrade condition.  She also attested her attempts to present her concerns to the wing commander went unanswered.

In accordance with DoDD 1304.20 para 4.2.2 (issuance cancelled on 10 Jan 19), it is DoD policy that the Enlisted Personnel Management System provide visible, and relatively stable, career progression opportunities over the long term.  There is no evidence the applicant was provided career progression.  Keeping the applicant in an overgrade status for over 48 months prevented her from being eligible for a promotion opportunity.

Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, there is evidence of an injustice.  The IG did not address the applicant’s complaint of being kept in an overgrade status for over 48 months, or her allegations of harassment and reprisal for seeking redress.  However, while the applicant should not have been kept in an overgrade status for an extended period, there is no guarantee the Adjutant General (TAG) would have promoted the applicant had she been in a valid position.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit I.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 31 Jan 22 for comment (Exhibit J), and the applicant replied on 1 Feb 22.  In his response on behalf of the applicant, counsel contended the advisory opinion confirmed the unit committed violations of all the regulatory provisions identified in the remand order.  The opinion further concurred that the IG, who was the applicant’s previous commander responsible for many of the substantiated violations raised in her complaint, failed to “address the applicant’s complaint of being kept in an overgrade status for over 48 months, or the acts of harassment and reprisal she endured on account of her pursuant for redress of her concerns.”  Further, the advisory opinion concluded the myriad regulatory violations and failures of the IG amount to an injustice, but recommended denial because there is “no guarantee the TAG would have promoted the member had she been in a valid position.”

Whether characterized as legal error or injustice, the AFBCMR has a clear obligation to direct corrective relief.  When the AFBCMR determines the existence of an error or injustice, it must grant “full and effective relief.” 32 C.F.R. § 865.4(h)(4).  The AFBCMR has “an abiding moral sanction to determine, insofar as possible, the true nature of an alleged injustice and to take steps to grant thorough and fitting relief.” Caddington v. United States, 147 Ct. Cl. 629, 634 (1959). See also Haselwander v. McHugh, 774 F.3d 990, 996 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (same). It “is obligated not only to properly determine the nature of any error or injustice, but also to take ‘such corrective action as will appropriately and fully erase such error or compensate such injustice.’” Roth v. United States, 378 F.3d 1371, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

The lack of promotion consideration by the TAG is an error and injustice itself.  Due to procedural errors, the applicant was erroneously and unjustly kept from this particular stage of the promotion process.  Had she not been the victim of these errors and injustices, it is entirely reasonable to conclude she would have been considered for promotion by the TAG who would have had no reasonable basis not to promote her.  If the AFBCMR relies on the lack of TAG approval as the reason for denial, it would be abdicating its duty to correct the errors and injustices clearly before it.

In light of the above, the evidence of record, and all applicable authority, the Board should direct the relief articulated by the advisory opinion with one caveat: the effective date of rank should be the earliest she would have been eligible for promotion but for the procedural violations.  The remand application requests a date of 3 Mar 14, which is the date the applicant was returned to duty following a medical review and there were no promotion-eligibility limitations aside from the overgrade position and assignment preclusions that were the product of the unit’s numerous regulatory violations.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit K.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

After reviewing all Exhibits, to include the remand order, as well as the applicant’s additional evidence and rebuttal, the Board finds the evidence presented demonstrates an error and injustice.  In our review, the Board explicitly followed the Court remand order to:

a.	Rescind the 2019 decision;
b.	Strike or rescind the NGB/A1PP advisory opinion that did not comply with AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.2.2.4.;
c.	Assign the remanded case to a case examiner who was not assigned to the applicant’s previous 2018 application;
d.	Empanel three Board members who did not decide the applicant’s 2018 application;
e.	Afford the applicant or her counsel an opportunity to submit additional evidence and arguments.  

Additionally, the Board ordered a new advisory from the Air Force office of primary responsibility to address the remand order’s following six takeaways:

i.	Explaining whether the unit complied with ANGI 36-2101 (10 Apr 12), paragraphs 4.2 and 4.2.1 by the applicant remaining in an overgrade-condition status effective 1 Jan 12 for a period exceeding 24 months and again on 12 Jul 15 (by NGB Form 36-11, backdated to 1 Oct 14 through 10 Jun 16); 

ii. Explaining whether the unit complied with ANGI 36-2101, paragraph 2.18.11; 

iii. Explaining whether the unit complied with ANGI 36-2502 (17 Jun 10), paragraph 1.1.4 and/or its successor regulation AFI 36-2502 (12 Dec 14), paragraphs 10.1.11.2–3;

iv. Explaining whether the unit complied with ANGI 36-2101 paragraphs 2.18.2.2 and 2.18.4; 

v. Explaining whether the unit complied with the requirements articulated in DoDD 1304.20 (28 Jul 05), paragraph 4.2.2 and AFPD 36-25 (7 May 14), paragraph 3.1; 

vi. Addressing the existence of any legal or factual error for all remand items, to fully evaluate and consider whether any remand item, individually or collectively, constitutes an injustice necessitating correction.

Regarding the first takeaway, the unit did not comply with ANGI 36-2101, paragraphs 4.2 and 4.2.1 when they established the applicant’s overgrade condition effective 1 Jan 12, and again on 12 Jul 15, and allowed her to remain in the overgrade condition beyond 24 months.  Extension of the 24-month restriction required approval from NGB/A1PP which was not requested or received.

As for the second takeaway, by failing to reassign the applicant to the first available position commensurate with her grade for which she was qualified, the unit did not comply with ANGI 36-2101, paragraph 2.18.11..  The applicant remained in an overgrade condition from its initial establishment on 1 Jan 12 until her retirement on 29 May 18. 

The third takeaway addresses the commander’s responsibilities under ANGI 36-2502, paragraph 1.1.4. and its successor regulation AFI 36-2502, paragraphs 10.1.11.2 and 10.1.11.3. to ensure members meet all promotion criteria prior to promotion and to ensure a viable personnel force management plan is in place to provide for the progressive development and upward mobility of the assigned personnel.  The applicant’s contention that she was denied promotion due to her overgrade condition supports the unit’s compliance with the requirement for a member to meet all promotion criteria prior to promotion; however, there was no evidence the unit complied with the requirement to have a force management plan in place.

As for the fourth takeaway, ANGI 36-2101, paragraph 2.18.2.2. requires a copy of the NGB Form 36-11, signed by the member and commander, to be provided to the Force Support Squadron (FSS).  The commander is further required to keep the member informed of their overgrade status and continually work to rectify the condition.  In this instance, while there are copies of the NGB Forms 36-11 signed by the applicant and her commander, which serve as evidence of the applicant’s knowledge of her overgrade status, there is no evidence they were provided to the FSS, or that any effort was made to resolve the applicant’s overgrade condition.  Additionally, there is no evidence the unit complied with the portion of ANGI 36-2101, paragraph 2.18.4., which required the FSS to produce and provide a quarterly listing to the commander identifying those members currently assigned as overgrade whose condition would expire in the next 12 months.  There was also no evidence the applicant’s commander used such a listing for force management decisions regarding overgrade assignments/reassignments, or that a listing was returned to the FSS with a viable plan for resolution of each overgrade condition.

Concerning the fifth takeaway, by not resolving the applicant’s overgrade condition, the unit was not in compliance with DoDD 1304.20, paragraph 4.2.2., which outlined an Enlisted Personnel Management System goal to provide visible, relatively stable career progression opportunities over the long term.  However, the unit’s failure to promote the applicant was in compliance with AFPD 36-25, paragraph 3.1., which requires selection of airmen for promotion based on potential to serve in the next higher grade, using the fully qualified or best qualified concept, but not to the exclusion of other factors.  In this instance, the applicant’s qualifications were moot as her overgrade condition rendered her ineligible for promotion consideration.

For the sixth takeaway, addressing consideration of all remand items, the Board finds the applicant’s unit did not comply with ANGI 36-2101 regarding establishment and management of her overgrade condition or with DoDD 1304.20 to provide stable career progression opportunities.  Further, this error was exacerbated by the unit’s partial compliance with the requirements of ANGI 36-2502, and its successor AFI 36-2502, whereby the applicant was appropriately not promoted due to ineligibility, but that ineligibility was, to a certain extent, the result of error or oversight on the part of the unit, creating an injustice upon the applicant by impairing her ability to advance in her career.  Finally, the Board also finds the unit did comply with the specific requirement of AFPD 36-25, paragraph 3.1., if not its intent.  

However, the unit’s responsibility to correct the applicant’s overgrade condition by reassigning her to a position commensurate with her grade and for which she was qualified would have been met by placing her in a technical sergeant (E-6) billet, as acknowledged by counsel’s statement that placement in a master sergeant (E-7) authorized position was possible, if not mandatory.  This would have corrected the overgrade condition, but the applicant would still not have been eligible for promotion to the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7), in accordance with AFI 36-2502, which requires the applicant to be assigned to a valid UMD position with an authorized grade greater than or equal to the grade for which she is being recommended.   Therefore, the Board concurs with the advisory opinion and rationale of NGB/A1PP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s position with regard to her promotion to the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7), finding her contention that correction of her overgrade condition would have resulted in her promotion to be wholly speculative.  

Finally, in accordance with AFI 36-2502, authority to approve promotion of a drill status guardsman to the rank and grade of master sergeant (E-7), lies within the discretion of the state Adjutant General.  Additionally, per 10 USC 10112, the Air National Guard, while in service to the United States, is a component of the Air Force.  When not in service to the United States, ANG units are in service of their respective state (32 USC 101(6)), placing the applicant’s request for relief outside this Board’s authority.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s record and further recommends the applicant seek relief from the state agency holding the appropriate authority.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant that, while there is evidence of error and injustice, this Board cannot provide the relief requested as it is not within the Secretary of the Air Force authority.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s record and further recommends the applicant seek relief from the state agency holding the appropriate authority.

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-2019-01420 in Executive Session on 28 Feb 22:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit F:	Record of Proceedings, w/ Exhibits A-E, dated 21 Nov 19.
Exhibit G:	United States Court of Federal Claims Order, dated 31 Aug 21.
Exhibit H:	Additional Evidence/Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 4 Oct 21.
Exhibit I:	Advisory Opinion, NGB/A1PP, w/atchs, dated 18 Jan 22. 
Exhibit J:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Counsel, dated 31 Jan 22.
Exhibit K:	Applicant’s Response, w/atchs, dated 1 Feb 22.

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