ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 83-03185
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be appointed a Warrant Officer, Junior Grade (JG), Maritime, dated
13 Jul 43.
His honorable discharge, dated 30 Oct 45, be reissued to show that the
discharge was in the grade of Warrant Officer.
Reserve Order CA-064468, dated 21 Sep 71, honorably discharging him
from the Air Force Reserve as a technical sergeant (retired) be
amended to reflect Warrant Officer, the highest grade held at the end
of 30 years.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF THE CASE:
The applicant is a former Air Corps enlisted member who retired in the
grade of technical sergeant (E-6), effective 1 Sep 62. He was
credited with 21 years of active duty.
On 7 Mar 84, the Board considered and denied a similar appeal by the
applicant (see AFBCMR 83-03185, with Exhibits A through E).
On 13 Aug 92, the Board denied the applicant’s request for
reconsideration of his application (Exhibit F).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Air Staff recommendation against granting his request rested on
the most shaky of foundations, assumption. His organization was
appointing warrant officers without regard to authorized vacancies,
and there was a vacancy on his boat, the one he was filling. He was
selected by the Board specifically because he was filling the position
of 2nd Assistant Engineer, a position he held through 1943, and which
was a warrant officer vacancy. It is also clear that his commander
was contemporaneously attempting to find his warrant officer packet so
he could be appointed to fill that vacancy. Objectively, it is clear
that the recommendation was wrong, as there was a vacancy into which
he could have been appointed. The morning reports he has submitted
are new evidence and are material to resolution of this matter as they
demonstrate that the Air Staff recommendation upon which the Board’s
prior decisions were based were erroneous assumptions.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a counsel’s
statement, and extracts from his military personnel records.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient
evidence requiring any corrective action regarding the applicant’s
request that his records be corrected to show that he was appointed a
Warrant Officer (JG), effective 13 Jul 43. We have reviewed the
applicant’s most recent submission and find it also insufficient to
warrant a reversal of our previous determination in this case. The
available evidence does indicate that the applicant was qualified and
recommended for appointment as a Warrant Officer. However, this does
not lead to the inescapable conclusion that the failure of the
approving authority to act on such a recommendation constitutes an
error or injustice. Other than his own assertions, the applicant has
provided no compelling documentary evidence which, in our estimation,
is sufficient to overcome the 1983 rationale of the Air Force office
of primary responsibility. Accordingly, in view of the above and in
the absence of evidence showing he was erroneously or unjustly
precluded from being appointed, we find no basis to act favorably on
the applicant’s request.
2. 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 our understanding of the issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of probable 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 18 Feb 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 13 Aug 92
Exhibit G. Letter, counsel, dated 21 May 98, w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1983-03185
The available evidence does indicate that the applicant was qualified and recommended for appointment as a Warrant Officer. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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...
He also provides official correspondence indicating he was recommended for a field appointment to WOJG, that he had been the acting WOJG, and had been presented a bar to wear while in that position until his appointment was approved. Personnel orders from the 345th Airdrome Squadron, dated 15 Aug 45, reflect the applicant was acting in the position of WOJG. If the Board approves relief, his record should reflect he was appointed to WOJG and was discharged in that grade on 16 Jan 46.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02866
A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating that as a result of administrative corrections to his position, he now has all the requirements to meet a position vacancy board: time in grade, a valid lieutenant colonel position, and the intent to nominate. Based on the assumption that...
Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. They recommend the applicant's request be time barred or denied on its merits (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 September 2002, for review and response.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02210
While he was a Deputy Commander at the time the PRF was written, he was actually the IG when the promotion board met. Selection board members use the "whole person" concept when evaluating an officer for promotion to the next higher grade. We note that the OSB that was prepared for the selection board accurately reflected his completion of Air War College.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03906
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03906 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 JUN 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of 2C (involuntarily separated under AFR 39-10, with an honorable discharge; or entry level separation without characterization of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03605
DPPPWB states the application was not filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2303, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, (AFBCMR) paragraph 3.5, 1 March 1996. DPPPWB states in absence of any documentation to the contrary the assumption is that the applicant was discharged in the correct grade. He resigned from OCS, because he was eligible for discharge based on having 98 points, which is reflected on his honorable discharge certificate.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02840
In support of the applicant’s appeal, the nephew submits the applicant’s records showing the Air Medals and decorations received by the applicant during his time in service. Officers never promoted while in active service would be promoted on the first duty day of terminal leave provided they served two years on active duty in their present grade and had an efficiency index of 35 or higher. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we...
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. There is no record of the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel being questioned within the three-year...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03185
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03185 XXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 February 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The AF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the Air Force...