AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
JUL 0 7 t998
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02407
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be discharged from the Army Air Corps in the grade of master
s,ergeant rather than technical sergeant.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His supervisor, a first lieutenant, had told him privately that
he had recommended [the applicant] for promotion to master
sergeant. However, two days later his supervisor was killed in
an aircraft accident and he was never promoted.
In support, applicant provides three letters with other documents
and clippings confirming the supervisor's death. His complete
submission is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant's records were destroyed by the 1973 fire at the
National Personnel Records Center.
The relevant facts pertaining to this applicati.on are contained
in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in
this Record of Proceedings,
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed
this appeal. The author does not question the fact the applicant
may have been told he was being recommended for promotion to
master sergeant by his supervisor. However, the applicant himself
states that all promotions in h i s Military Occupational Specialty
(MOS) were "frozen" f o r the remainder of his tour. If
recommended, this is probably why he was never promoted. If the
promotion had been approved, it would have been effective between
1942 and 13 October 1945, the date applicant was honorably
discharged. Applicant's word is not being questioned; however,
because promotions to master sergeant were frozen and the fact
there is no documentation or evidence the promotion was ever
approved, the author is unable to support this request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit B .
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
and states that promotions at
were not frozen until he was
a year later. He was given to
understand
photographic laboratory chief
called for the rank of master sergeant. He provides names of
individuals he knows who supervised their labs as master
sergeants. He does not want any monetary rewards. He just wants
the delayed promotion promised him. In a second rebuttal, he
indicates he would take a lie detector test at his own expense to
prove what he has reported. He's 78 and wants his "marker" to
reflect the grade of master sergeant.
Applicant's complete responses are at Exhibit D.
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. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. We do
not doubt the applicant's assertion that his supervisor told him
he was being recommended for promotion to master sergeant.
Unfortunately, since the applicant's records were destroyed by
the 1973 fire, we are unable to ascertain whether the
recommendation was ever actually submitted, if it was in fact
approved but misplaced, or actually disapproved. While the burden
of proof rests with an applicant, we are moved by this
individual's obvious sincerity and his stated wish for- no
monetary rewards---merely the fulfillment of a promise made long
ago. Since there is no proof that the asserted recommendation was
ever approved, we cannot in good conscience award him any back
pay and benefits. However, since t h e possibility also exists
that he was indeed approved for promotion, we believe a fair
2
97-02407
compromise would be to discharge him in the grade of master
sergeant. , rather than technical sergeant , and we so recommend.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was promoted
to the grade of master sergeant effective 12 October 1945 and, on
13 October 1945, he was honorably discharged in the grade of
master sergeant.
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 12 May 1998 under the provisions of AFI 3 6 -
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member
Cha i r
All members voted to correct the records, as
following document-ary evidence was considered:
recommended
The
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Aug 97, w/
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 26
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Sep 97.
Exhibit E. Letters, Applicant, undated and dated 4 Dec 97.
a t c h
Aug 97.
7"--
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
3
97-02407
Applicant contends his supervisor rendered the contested 3 March 1994 report in reprisal against him and requests the Board remove the report from his record. While the applicant has provided a statement from his former supervisor who states that a recommendation package was submitted, we are not persuaded that his former supervisor had the authority to submit an award recommendation or that the applicant was eligible for an award at the time his supervisor went PCS. If supplemental...
EPR profile follows: PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 18 Aug 95 5 5 Jul 96 5 22 Jan 97 5 * 22 Jan 98 4 22 Jan 99 5 * Contested Report _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and states that the rater contends he was inexperienced in rating military personnel, and as a result, did not clearly outline his expectations of the applicant’s duty...
A complete copy of the advisory is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Awards and Decorations Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPR, reviewed the application for award of the MSM for the period of 2 Jul 97 – 3 Jul 99. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to recommend or not recommend for a decoration upon Permanent Change of Station (PCS). Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02285 INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.05 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade be corrected from technical sergeant (E-6) to master sergeant (E-7), effective 2 September 1945. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. ...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02019 INDEX CODE: 131.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be retroactively promoted to the grade of E-9. In November 1957, he was told, by word of mouth, that his base commander had received a message from personnel at Andersen AFB stating that he had been instructed not to hand-carry his...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00479
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The former military member’s separation documents and enlistment records indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9 March 1948 with prior regular active duty Army service time of 2 years, 3 months and 10 days. He enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 15 September 1955 and served on active duty until 30 June 1968 at which time he was honorably relieved from active duty and retired in the grade of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02407
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The few incidents his commander cites in his recommendation to demote do not support the demotion decision. The commander’s basis for demotion action is too vague and lacks the evidence necessary to prove the applicant actually made a false statement. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC- 2004-02407 in...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01693
For airmen who meet eligibility requirements, the immediate supervisor recommends promotion on AF Form 224, Recommendation and Authorization for Promotion of Airman as Reserve of the Air Force. According to the 7 Apr 04 report, MSgt C was the rater and Chief A was the additional rater. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He should have received an initial and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02200
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the ERAB. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-2003-02200 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36- 2603: Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair Ms. Martha Maust, Member Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member By majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Exhibit B.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion & Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB, also reviewed this application and states that Air Force policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the closeout date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of...