Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200851
Original file (0200851.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00851
            INDEX CODE:  110.00

      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  None

      SSN   HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he received a promotion to  senior
master sergeant (SMSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received a letter from HQ AFMPC/DPMDOA dated 26 Jun 95, stating the
effective date of his promotion to E-8 is reflected in  the  personnel
data system as 25 Nov 76.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  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 the applicant has not filed his claim a within  the
3-year time limit.  The applicant's request can be dismissed under the
equitable doctrine of laches, which  denies  relief  to  one  who  has
unreasonably  and  inexcusably  delayed  asserting  a  claim.   Laches
consists of two elements:  Inexcusable delay and prejudice to the  Air
Force resulting therefrom.  In the applicant's case, he waited  almost
7 years after he states he discovered the alleged error  or  injustice
before he filed a claim, although the applicant knew when  he  applied
for retirement in 3 Oct 67, the highest grade he held on  active  duty
was master sergeant (MSgt).  The applicant's delay in filing  a  claim
has caused prejudice to the Air Force.  Based on the passage of  time,
relevant records have been  destroyed  or  are  no  longer  available,
memories have failed and witnesses are unavailable.

The applicant's date of rank (DOR) to MSgt is 1 Jun 66.  The applicant
applied for retirement on 3 Oct 67, had he not applied for  retirement
he would have been eligible for promotion consideration beginning with
1 Apr 68.  The applicant was ineligible for promotion consideration in
accordance with Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-29, Promotion of Airmen,
Table 1, Rule 8, which states an airmen is  ineligible  for  promotion
consideration if he has applied for retirement.  Therefore,  based  on
the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s  request
(Exhibit C).

AFPC/DPPRRP  states  the  applicant's   application   for   retirement
indicates in item 12 that the highest pay grade he held on active duty
was MSgt.  Special Order Number  AC-28541  approving  the  applicant's
retirement application reflects on line  12  his  highest  grade  held
while on active duty was MSgt.  The applicant was promoted to MSgt  by
Special Order A-455 on 17 Jun 66.  The applicant's performance  report
with the closing date of  1  May  67  show  his  grade  as  MSgt.   HQ
AFMPC/DPMDOA contacted the applicant by phone informing him  that  the
personnel data system had been updated erroneously reflecting  his  as
SMSgt and that corrective action was  taken  to  correct  the  system.
Section 8961, Title 10, United States Code states:   "Unless  entitled
to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, a Regular
or Reserve of the  Air  Force…who  retires  other  than  for  physical
disability retires in the regular or reserve grade that  he  holds  on
the date of his retirement."  In the applicant's case,  the  grade  is
MSgt (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
26 Apr 02, for review and response.  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.  Applicant’s contentions are duly
noted; 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.
Based on the information in the applicant's records and in  accordance
with AF policy he was not eligible for promotion due  to  his  pending
voluntary  retirement.  The  applicant   submitted   a   letter   from
AFMPC/DPMDOA stating his effective date of rank to E-8 was 25 Nov  76;
however, the applicant was notified on 29 Jan 96, that  the  personnel
data system was erroneously updated  and  that  the  error  have  been
corrected.   Applicant  has  not  established  nor  has  he  presented
persuasive evidence the he was promoted  to  senior  master  sergeant.
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   Docket  Number  02-
00851 in Executive Session on June 4, 2002, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
                 Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Mar 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 16 Apr 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.




                                  VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                                  Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00059

    Original file (BC-2003-00059.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served in the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) from 1 October 1974 to 3 December 1974; therefore, he should be retired in that grade. The DPPRRP evaluation is at Exhibit D. The SAFPC Legal Advisor concurs with DPPPWB that denial of the applicant’s request is appropriate since he voluntarily refused promotion to MSgt. In response to DPPRRP’s request for review, the SAFPC Legal Advisor states that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01397

    Original file (BC-2007-01397.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served 23 years of continuous active duty service during which time he received only one senior noncommissioned officer promotion (SNCO) to master sergeant (MSgt). The remaining 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 at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200700

    Original file (0200700.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPPWB further states the Air Force, after 56 years and limited records, can not determine if the applicant should have received a promotion prior to his separation from the service. Therefore, based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit D). We believe it should be pointed out that the applicant may have been deserving of a promotion but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must assume the applicant was discharged in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00851

    Original file (BC-2005-00851.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleges these evaluation boards would not consider anyone for promotion if they were not an NCO Academy graduate. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant notes that he was eligible for promotion during the senior master sergeant boards held in 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975. The applicant indicates agreement...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01967

    Original file (BC-2012-01967.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPSOE states although they cannot determine whether the applicant was actually considered and selected for promotion to SMSgt, they can verify that he would have become ineligible for promotion due to his declination of assignment to Vietnam. The application has not been filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for 2 Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01075

    Original file (BC-2003-01075.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    AFI 36-2606 states that the appeal authority for individuals like the applicant with more than 20 years of service would be his group commander. Based on HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s advisory (Exhibit E), the group commander’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) contacted the HQ AFPC retirements section to advise that the group commander was going to complete the AF Form 418. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises the applicant was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01507

    Original file (BC-2007-01507.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant provided a statement in his own behalf. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the active duty Air Force on 14 Jul 52 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt). The application has not been filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, paragraph 3-5.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03136

    Original file (BC-2002-03136.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03136 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7) effective 1 Sep 93 or later, but not later than 1999, with back pay. The applicant states that he wants two years pay as a CMSgt. The applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03136

    Original file (BC-2002-03136.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03136 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7) effective 1 Sep 93 or later, but not later than 1999, with back pay. The applicant states that he wants two years pay as a CMSgt. The applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02228

    Original file (BC-2006-02228.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    They also stated his request for promotion to TSgt should be denied based on merit as they found nothing in his record to indicate an error or injustice was made that prevented him from being promoted or considered for promotion. The DPPPWB complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 Aug 06, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment...