Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200781
Original file (0200781.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00781
            INDEX CODE:  128.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive the difference in pay from sergeant (E-4 to staff  sergeant
(E-5)) for the period 27 August 1944 – 15 June 1945.

_________________________________________________________________

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.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB  states  that  they  find  no  documentation  regarding  a
promotion  to  staff  sergeant  or  any  other  enlisted  grade.   The
applicant’s Enlisted Record  and  Report  of  Separation  –  Honorable
Discharge shows his grade as sergeant when  he  was  discharged     31
October 1945 and the highest grade held as sergeant.  Therefore,  they
must assume the applicant was discharged in the correct grade.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 5 April 2002, a complete copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 30 days.  As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we are not persuaded that  the  relief  requested  should  be
granted.  In this respect, the limited information provided  does  not
substantiate  applicant’s   claims.    We   are   not   unmindful   or
unappreciative of the applicant’s service to his  Nation.   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  on  30
May 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Frederick R. Beaman, III, Member
                 Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:








   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jan 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Mar 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Apr 02.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202508

    Original file (0202508.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 0103514

    Original file (0103514.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPPWB further states the Air Force, after 56 years and limited records, cannot determine if the applicant should have been promoted earlier than he was. Therefore based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit D). He further states that he was promoted at the time of his discharge and the promotion was not affiliated with his flying years, the practice at that time was to promote each enlisted man one grade at time of discharge (Exhibit F).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02269

    Original file (BC-2003-02269.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement, a Certificate of Death from the state of ---, a copy of a court document naming the deceased’s wife as executor of his estate, copies of orders awarding the Air Medal and an oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal to the deceased member, an obituary, a congressional request for information from C/M Jo Bonner of Alabama, a copy of the deceased members Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, a copy of his Army Qualification...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202356

    Original file (0202356.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02356 INDEX CODE: 110.02 COUNSEL: DAV HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable and his grade of staff sergeant (SSgt) be reinstated. On 2 Nov 59, the Staff Judge Advocate found the case file to be legally sufficient to support a discharge for unfitness with...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200864

    Original file (0200864.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded at this time that the contested EPR should be amended to reflect a senior rater indorsement. We also note the applicant had completed Senior NCO Academy and, except for the report in question, received senior rater indorsements on his EPRs since 5 Nov 97. Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 May 02.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03605

    Original file (BC-2005-03605.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-02410

    Original file (BC-2005-02410.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02410 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant during promotion cycle 02E8 with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Sep 02. If the Board believes an injustice exists and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01020

    Original file (BC-2004-01020.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied. An exception to policy skill level waiver request was submitted and approved on 6 November 2003. We have seen no evidence showing the applicant was not provided fair and equitable promotion consideration in accordance with existing policy and procedures.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02479

    Original file (BC-2003-02479.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPPPWB states that AFPC/DPAAD1 did not receive a request for the applicant to be released for Dorm Manager duties until 22 Jan 02. It is our opinion that since the applicant was performing Dorm Manager duties, as directed by his superiors, his records should be corrected to reflect that he was assigned the appropriate CAFSC at the time he was placed in the position and that he be considered SKT exempt for the 02E6 promotion cycle. It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02463

    Original file (BC-2004-02463.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states that based on his completion of the requisite training and service as a B-24, Liberator, radio operator/gunner in Italy, he was eligible for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant prior to his discharge. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that on 18 November 1945, he was promoted to the grade of...