RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02511
            INDEX CODE: 131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.     Her  deceased  husband’s  retirement  rank  and  grade   be   changed
retroactively from technical sergeant (E-6) to master sergeant (E-7).

2.    The effective date for changing the rank and grade be on  or  about  1
August 1973.

3.    She be entitled to all rights and benefits  accrued  as  a  result  of
this correction to include but not limited to back pay  and  other  benefits
from the date of her deceased husband’s untimely death to  the  present  and
beyond.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust  and
the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted  from  the
applicant's military records, 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,  Physical  Disability  Division,  Directorate   of   Pers   Prog
Management, AFPC/DPPD, reviewed the application and states that  a  thorough
review of the AFBCMR case file reflects that the member
was found unfit for continued military service  and  received  a  disability
retirement effective 13  July  1973,  under  the  provisions  of  AFM  35-4.
Military personnel records reflect that the highest  grade  held  on  active
duty up to the time of his disability  retirement,  was  that  of  technical
sergeant (E-6).  Under the  provisions  of  Title  10,  United  States  Code
(USC), Section 1372, in effect at that time, this was the highest  grade  at
which he could be retired under the provisions of Chapter 61.  The  member’s
disability retirement in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6)  was  correct
based on provisions in Title 10, USC, in effect at that time.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion  &  Mil  Testing  Br,
AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed this application and states that  the  spouse  of  the
deceased member has provided a copy of the Air Force Times article  dated  1
August 1973 which reflects an individual with the same name as  her  husband
being promoted to master sergeant (MSgt).  The Air Force  Times  receives  a
sanitized copy of promotion lists  without  Social  Security  Administration
Numbers (SSANs).  The individual whose  name  appears  in  the  August  1973
edition could very well be  that  of  her  husband.   However,  due  to  the
passage of time this cannot  be  confirmed.   Promotion  History  Files,  to
include Worldwide Promotion Selectee  Names  Lists,  are  maintained  for  a
period of 10 years under the Privacy Act of 1974.  Ten  years  is  generally
considered a  sufficient  period  to  resolve  any  promotion  inquiries  or
concerns.  The promotion cycle in question regarding his selection  to  MSgt
was cycle 74A7.  Promotions for this cycle were effective 1 August 1973 -  1
January 1974.  The member’s records reveal he verified the data to  be  used
in his promotion consideration on 26 April 1973.  The normal  period  to  be
administered promotion tests for this cycle was 1 February 1973 -  20  April
1973.  They note the member did not test  until  7  June  1973.   The  delay
could have been because he was assigned to the  Patient  Squadron  at  Eglin
AFB, FL at this time.  They are  unable  to  determine  at  this  point  the
specific date promotion selections were made for this cycle as files are  no
longer  maintained.   However,  selections  would  have  been   accomplished
between 7 June 1973, the date the member tested and 22 June 1973,  the  date
the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) determined he  was  unfit  for  further
military service.  If the selection list  had  been  accomplished  after  22
June 1973, he would have been identified  as  ineligible.   Individuals  who
are selected during a particular  promotion  cycle  are  assigned  Promotion
Sequence Numbers (PSNs) based on  their  seniority.   Individuals  with  the
greatest time-in-grade, time-in-service and date of birth are  assigned  the
earliest PSN.  Since individuals are promoted each month  within  the  cycle
(as vacancies become available) those  with  the  lowest  PSN  are  promoted
first.  Again, because of the lack of promotion files for  this  period,  it
is not
possible to determine when he would have  been  promoted,  assuming  he  was
selected.  Since the  SAF  determined  the  member  was  unfit  for  further
military service on  22  June  1973,  he  became  ineligible  for  promotion
irrespective of the fact that his name may have subsequently appeared  on  a
selection list.  Air Force Regulation 39-29, Promotion of  Airmen,  was  the
prescribing directive  at  the  time.   Specifically  Table  3  (Determining
Ineligibility for Promotion), Line H, states that “An airman  is  ineligible
for promotion on  the  promotion  effective  date  if  he  is  selected  for
promotion to grades E-2 through E-7 and has been determined by  the  SAF  to
be  unfit  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  grade  because   of   physical
disability.”  Again, the SAF determined the member to be unfit  on  22  June
1973, his name  was  placed  on  the  retired  list  on  13  July  1973  and
promotions for the 74A7 cycle were effective  1  August  1973  -  1  January
1974.  As a result, the member was not entitled to be promoted  and  retired
in the  grade  of  MSgt.   They  recommend  denial  based  on  the  rational
provided.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The deceased member’s son reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states  the
pay grade at which the member was medically  retired  at,  is  incorrect  in
accordance with the promotion time frame  which  AFR  39-29  reflects.   The
member’s  consolidated  base   personnel   office   (CBPO)   did   not   act
appropriately with information that should have been in  its  possession  at
that time, nor did  it  appropriately  document  any  information  that  was
pertinent to the member’s  service  record.   Personnel  assignment  records
given to the member upon retirement from the Air Force,  at  no  time  shows
the member was assigned to any type of limited duty status  or  assigned  to
any form of medical hold.  The member’s  personnel  records  have  no  entry
that the member was found unfit for duty by the Secretary  of  Defense.   No
entries occur in the medical record copy given to the service member  as  to
when the member was found unfit for  duty.   Granted  the  Air  Force  Times
article is not an official document.  It is a newspaper,  whose  issue  date
is of importance.  Being that this is an August 1973 issue,  it  means  that
the Air Force Times was in possession of  the  E-7  promotion  list  in  May
1973, since its issues are put together for publication  90  days  prior  to
press time.  The death of the member  occurred  within  the  180-day  period
after his medical retirement.  At that point, the member  should  have  been
placed back on active duty for the period  of  13 July  1973  to  7  October
1973, and all pay,  benefits,  and  awards  to  which  he  would  have  been
entitled be so awarded to the member.  This action should have included  the
member being awarded the promotion to MSgt for which  the  member  had  been
selected, and
that all accrued pay and benefits awarded to  his  surviving  widow.   As  a
former Navy Chief Personnelman, he knows this was a practice  long  done  in
all branches  of  the  armed  forces.  The  servicing  personnel  office  at
Blytheville AFB should have known this and  acted  accordingly.   Everything
stated by AFPC/DPPD as to the preliminary findings of the  board,  makes  no
mention of what documents the information was extracted from.  It  can  only
be concluded that everything presented to the board in way  of  research  by
the Air Force is purely conjecture and opinion, not based on fact.

Applicant’s response, with attachments, 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  probable  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice   of   the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;  however,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  In regard to the  statement  that
since the death of the servicemember  occurred  within  the  180-day  period
after his medical retirement, it is not clear to the Board what this  is  in
reference to but we  are  not  aware  of  any  Air  Force  regulation  which
requires this action be taken.  In view  of  the  above  and  based  on  the
presumption  of  regularity,  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 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  on  26  May
1999 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
                 Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
                 Ms. Gloria J. Williams

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 August 1998, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 22 October 1998.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 29 October 1998.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 November 1998.
   Exhibit F.  Deceased member’s son’s response, dated
               13 January 1999, w/atch.






                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair