RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01951
INDEX CODE: 107.00; 131.09
COUNSEL: XXXX XX XXXXX
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect award of the Good Conduct Medal
(GCM) and restoration of his rank of Technician 5th grade, T/5 (E-3).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He never received the GCM and his T/5 stripes were taken from him and
given to someone else. The complete submission is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Based on the available records, the applicant was a surgical
technician, who served in the Army Air Force from 16 November 1943
until 9 November 1945, at which time he was honorably discharged in
the grade of private (E-1). The WD AGO Form reflects that the highest
grade held was Technician 5th grade; award of the European Theater of
Operations (ETO) Ribbon for the period 9 November 1944 - 6 August
1945, American Theater Ribbon, and the World War II Victory Medal; and
attendance at the Dental Technicians School, O’Reilly General
Hospital, Springfield, Missouri.
The applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire in
1973. Therefore, the facts surrounding his separation cannot be
verified.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
The Recognition Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPR reviewed this application
and recommended denial. The applicant’s Report of Separation shows
the highest grade held was T/5, but he was discharged as a private.
He did not provide any documentation to explain why the T/5 rank was
withdrawn. He has provided no documentation to show he was awarded
the GCM. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit C.
The Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch, AFPC/DPPPWB,
recommended denial on the basis of timeliness and on the merits.
Relevant records have been destroyed or are no longer available,
memories have faded, and witnesses are unavailable. There is no
indication why the applicant was discharged as a private. In the
absence of documentation to the contrary, DPPPWB stated they must
assume he was discharged in the proper grade. The complete evaluation
is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
Counsel reiterated that the applicant is a 75-year-old World War II
veteran, who seeks nothing more than to have his proper rank restored
and to formally receive the GCM -- both of which are due the applicant
by virtue of his service to his country. Counsel stated that the
laches argument should not and cannot be applied to the granting of a
GCM; and rejection of the restoration of the rank of T/5 under AFI 36-
2603 cannot and should not be applied. His complete 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. After careful consideration of the limited documentation available
for the Board’s review, a majority of the Board finds insufficient
relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of
probable error or injustice warranting favorable action on the
applicant’s request for award of the GCM. We noted counsel’s
assertion that the applicant should have received the GCM because,
during this period of World War II service, any personnel serving on
active duty for over one year received the medal unless a
countermanding order was issued. While we have seen no evidence that
he ever received the GCM or that an order was issued revoking the
medal, based upon the presumption of regularity in the conduct of
governmental affairs and without evidence from the applicant to the
contrary, the Board majority must presume that he received the
decorations to which he was entitled. Therefore, the majority finds
no basis upon which to favorably consider awarding the applicant the
GCM.
4. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice with regard to the
applicant’s request for restoration of the rank of Technician 5th
grade. We noted the applicant's complete submission in judging the
merits of his contention that the rank was taken from him and given to
someone else; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of
the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale
expressed as the basis for our conclusion that without evidence to the
contrary, we must assume he was discharged in the proper grade.
Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
requested relief.
5. The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give
the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a personal
appearance, with or without counsel, would not have materially added
to that understanding. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not
favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 4 January 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
Mr. Dale O. Jackson, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the application. Mr.
Carey voted to correct the record with respect to award of the GCM,
but did not desire to submit a minority report. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 13 June 00, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Fire Related Documents.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 13 October 00, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 19 October 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 November 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, Counsel, dated 6 December 00, w/atchs.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR
CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)
SUBJECT: AFBCMR Application of, Docket
Number: 00-01951
I have carefully considered all aspects of this case and do not
agree with the majority of the panel that the applicant’s request with
respect to award of the Good Conduct Medal (GCM) should be denied.
In arriving at my decision, I noted that the first GCM was
awarded for a period of one year served entirely during the period of
7 December 1941 to 2 March 1946, and was awarded to enlisted members
who distinguished themselves by exemplary behavior, efficiency and
fidelity throughout a period of continuous enlisted active Federal
military service. Although there was no entitlement to the medal
until the immediate commander approved the award and the award was
announced in permanent orders, given that the applicant was honorably
discharged for honest and faithful service, I must assume that the
commander’s failure to approve the award was due to administrative
oversight. Moreover, since the applicant’s record was destroyed by
fire in 1973, no documentation exists to verify whether or not he had
a period of misconduct that would have prevented the commander from
approving the decoration. Therefore, any doubt should be resolved in
favor of the applicant. In consideration of all the foregoing
factors, I concur with the dissenting member and believe award of the
GCM is warranted.
Accordingly, it is my decision that his records be corrected to
show he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal (GCM).
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AFBCMR 00-01951
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the
authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat
116), it is directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to, be corrected to show that he was awarded the
Good Conduct Medal (GCM) for service from 16 November 1943 through
15 November 1944.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02396
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied. DPPPWB states that there were provisions to promote former POWs one grade when they were liberated, provided they were a POW for 18 months or longer. There are no promotion orders in the applicant’s record to indicate whether or not he was promoted after liberation.
The applicant's delay in filing a claim has caused prejudice to the Air Force. DPPPWB further states the Air Force, after 56 years and limited records, cannot determine if the applicant should have been promoted. 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.
On 13 Jan 97, the applicant's commander notified him of his intent to recommend to the demotion authority that he be demoted. On 4 Sep 97, the applicant's commander requested that the applicant original rank be restored, which the demotion authority approved. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he has requested the Board adjust his DOR because there are currently no options for a commander to suspend demotion in an administrative demotion action.
The applicant’s request under AFI 36-2401 to have the contested EPR removed from his records was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board (ERAB). The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEP recommends the application be denied. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of his performance during the contested rating period.
DPPPWB stated that, as evidenced by the special order awarding the applicant's AFCM, the decoration did not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 96E7 cycle because the RDP date was 22 Aug 96--after selections were made on 25 May 96 for the 96E7 cycle. Exceptions to the above policy are only considered when the airman can support a previous submission with documentation or statements including conclusive evidence that the recommendation was officially placed in military channels...
DPPPWB assumes that his eligibility for promotion was reviewed during the 11 months preceding his separation, especially since he was awarded the Silver Star for his actions during the period Mar 44 to Sep 44. Since, at this late date, there is no way to know when the applicant would have met the established eligibility criteria for promotion, we believe that the applicant will be afforded proper and fitting relief by correcting his records to show he was promoted to the grade of technical...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03018 INDEX CODE: 111.02, 134.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: An expired Unfavorable Information File (UIF), with a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) be removed from her records; the line in Section V (Rater’s Comments) of her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR), closing 23 Apr 99, which made the...
He was medically cleared on 7 Aug 00 and enlisted in the RegAF on 5 Sep 00 in the grade of SSgt (E-5) with a DOR of 5 Sep 00. The applicant’s enlistment was processed in a timely manner and his DOR correctly established to equal his 5 Sep 00 enlistment date. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01882 INDEX CODE: 111.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 25 Mar 99 through 24 Mar 00 be declared void and removed from her records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief,...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 1 December 1997, the State of Department of Veterans Affairs, provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of the applicant’s request for award of the PH (Exhibit G). A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F. In a letter, dated 25 June 1997, the State of of Veterans Affairs, requested reconsideration request for award of the PH (Exhibit G). ' Examiner's...