RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00253 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His record be corrected to reflect his grade as Technical Sergeant (TSgt) E-6. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was promoted to TSgt in January 1971 upon his departure from his Pacific Air Force (PACAF) assignment. Upon his retirement, his DD Form 214, Armed Force of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, indicated his grade was still Staff Sergeant (SSgt) E-5. Despite all his actions, he could not get the error corrected. He had eight months in grade when he retired. He proudly served his country for over 20 years. He made all efforts, to his knowledge, to correct the error. Thanks to additional support in 2012, he discovered the option of submitting an application for correction to the AFBCMR. He has factual data to justify the correction. In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal statement, a letter of recommendation from his son-in-law and copies of documents extracted from his military personnel record. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who enlisted on 2 July 1951 and was relieved from active duty on 31 August 1971 and retired effective 1 September 1971. He was credited with 20 years, 1 month and 29 days of active duty service. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicant's request be time barred. Should the Board choose to decide the case, they recommend the applicant's request be denied based on lack of official documentation. They also recommend the DD Form 215, Correction of DD Form 214, Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active Duty, dated 27 February 2013, be destroyed. A review of the applicant’s record reveals no orders promoting him to the grade of TSgt. The Special Order P-30 provided by the applicant in support of his contention is not a promotion order or official document of rank/grade. Although the order reflects the applicant’s rank as TSgt, it appears to be a typographical error. No other document in his entire record with a date of 1 January 1971, until the date of retirement reflects the rank of TSgt. His record does contain an AF Form 1566, Test Verification, indicating the applicant's refusal to test for the rank of TSgt dated 13 January 1971. He would not have received this document if he had already been selected for promotion to TSgt. The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 1. AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial. DPSOR states that the applicant's record indicates he was promoted to SSgt on 1 October 1965. There are no promotion orders in his record to validate a promotion to the rank of TSgt. The applicant's retirement order, Special Order AC-07219, dated 24 February 1971, shows his rank as SSgt, with the highest rank held on active duty as SSgt. Additionally, the DD Form 214, dated 31 August 1971, identified his rank as SSgt. The applicant authenticated the accuracy of the information on the form by signing it. Finally, the applicant also completed a DD Form 1351-2, Travel Voucher or Subvoucher, dated 18 August 1971, on which he indicated his rank was SSgt. 2. During their review of his record, they discovered that earlier this year, a technician from the Total Force Service Center erroneously prepared a DD Form 215 to change his rank from SSgt to TSgt. The basis for this change was Special Order P-30, dated 22 January 1971, which indicated a change to the applicant's Date Eligible for Return from Overseas (DEROS). A DEROS change notification is not a valid source document for promotion; therefore, they notified AFPC/DPSOR to void this erroneous DD Form 215. The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 1. In further support of his request, the applicant responds that his promotions in the service were routinely verbal with little or no ceremony. Most information was passed by word of mouth. He confesses he did not understand the critical paperwork involved. He was informed after six years in grade that he was due a promotion to Technical Sergeant (TSgt). He was told by his Chief that the orders were being cut, he had been promoted, and the orders would follow him to his next assignment in Texas. He planned to retire at that duty station. He was pleased to see his DEROS orders reflected his new rank. 2. When he arrived at Bergstrom Air Force Base (AFB), he processed in with his travel orders and explained that he had been promoted to TSgt. Nothing more was said. His travel pay was processed and he did not know his rank would make much difference in his travel pay so he did not question the rank on that document. Up to the day he began out-processing, he argued about the promotion. When he was shown his DD Form 214 reflecting he was only a SSgt, he complained and argued for several days. It came to the point of signing the DD Form 214 or continue in the Air Force. He had aligned a job as a mechanic with the State of New York and could argue no longer with the Air Force administration. Totally disgusted, he signed the DD Form 214. He has been arguing this issue since 1971 but never knew how to “fight the system.” He admits he never saw promotion orders, but he had not seen promotion orders for previous promotions as most were verbal reports. He was promoted and the orders stayed in his records. 3. His personnel file at home was simply nonexistent. He understands that is his error. The only papers he has showing his promotion is the DEROS order. He was told his records were destroyed in a fire and actual file copies are no longer available. He has pursued every avenue in an attempt to find a copy of his promotion orders. It is interesting that he was told the file was destroyed yet, the Air Force evaluations’ research shows the file exists and does not contain promotion orders. He knows his ignorance of administrative procedures has caused this issue and confesses that this is why it has taken over 40 years to find recourse. He is now disabled and has suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for many years before being diagnosed as 100% disabled. He asks for consideration as an Airmen who served loyally. With six years in grade, he was promoted but he does not have the last piece of paper to prove it. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission, including his rebuttal, in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In addition, while we note the applicant’s assertion he was told he had been promoted and the promotion orders would follow him to his next assignment, the evidence available to us is insufficient to conclude that he was officially promoted to next higher grade. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 1 April 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Panel Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-00253 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, Applicant’s Master Personnel Record. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 4 Sep 2013. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 Oct 2013, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 2014. Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jan 2014.