RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02507
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His rank be changed from technical sergeant (E-6) to master sergeant
(E-7).
_________________________________________________________________
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.
In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement
from his daughter and copies of his discharge documents. The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was honorably discharged from the Army Air Corps on 1
Apr 47 under the provisions of AR 615-360 (Expiration of Term of
Service). He was serving in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) at
the time of discharge. The applicant’s Enlisted Record and Report of
Separation reveals E-6 as the highest grade held.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be time barred; however,
should the Board choose to decide the case, they recommend it be
denied on its merits. With respect to the applicant’s contention that
his recruitment officer promised him a promotion to master sergeant (E-
7) for reenlisting, DPPPWB stated that there is no documentation
concerning a promotion to the grade of E-7. Based on the extremely
limited records and the passage of time, it is not possible for
DPPPWB, at this point, to determine if promotion to a higher grade was
appropriate. DPPPWB believes that, after serving over 4 years of
active duty, his promotion history and eligibility for promotion would
have been reviewed at the time of separation. The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB
evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant and his daughter reviewed the advisory opinion. The
applicant’s daughter stated that her father was promised a promotion
to the grade of master sergeant. She indicated that her father does
know what he was promised 55 years ago. She is aware that a document
verifying this promise would clear up the matter, but her father took
the promise of an officer of the U.S. Army as the promise of the
government that would be upheld just as he would uphold a verbal
promise to another person. A complete copy of this response, with
attachments, is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
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. We
recognize his service to the Nation. However, no documentary evidence
has been presented to indicate that a recommendation for promotion was
officially submitted. In the absence of documentary evidence
substantiating that the applicant was recommended for promotion to the
grade of E-7 and that such a recommendation was approved, we do not
find the evidence provided establishes that the applicant has been the
victim of an error or injustice. In view of the above, we agree with
the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as our findings in the case.
Accordingly, the applicant’s request for promotion to E-7 is not
favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 02-02507
in Executive Session on 10 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
Ms. Diane Arnold, Member
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Aug 02.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 02.
JOSEPH A. ROJ
Panel Chair
On 27 Jun 01, the applicant received a LOR for driving under the influence (DUI) as well as a letter from his commander nonrecommending him for promotion to E- 5 for cycle 00E5. Dismissal of the charges against the applicant involved neither the presentation of any evidence nor any factual findings as to the merits of those charges. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03136
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
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...
However, the Board did find sufficient evidence to warrant his supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for cycles 98E7, 99E7, and 00E7, using his test scores from cycle 01E7 (Exhibit G). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing, AFPC/DPPPWB, states that the applicant was ineligible to test for cycle 01E7 because of his High...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-02507 INDEX CODE 111.02 111.03 111.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 12 May 99 be declared void and removed from his records _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His evaluators were...
The member was a sergeant at that time. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his late father should be promoted beyond the grade of technical sergeant. Exhibit B. Deceased Members's Limited Master Personnel Records.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01118
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to his nonjudicial punishment, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLSA/JAJM reviewed this application and recommends denial. DPPPWB states that the applicant’s punishment consisted of a reduction from the grade of MSgt (E-7) to TSgt (E-6) with a new date of...
Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close date of the decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD), and the date of the DECOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. DPPPWB indicated that the applicant’s AFAM 1OLC does not meet the criteria for promotion credit during the 98E6 cycle because there is no...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02285 INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.05 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade be corrected from technical sergeant (E-6) to master sergeant (E-7), effective 2 September 1945. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice. ...
In this respect, we note that the applicant was supplementally considered, and selected for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 95E6. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with...