RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01639
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge be corrected to show that he was a technical sergeant
and not a staff sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was paid as a technical sergeant and received flight pay while he
was the acting first sergeant at Tempelhof Air Field, Berlin Germany.
In support of his request applicant submitted copies of his honorable
discharge and enlisted record and report of separation.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Available records indicate the applicant entered active duty
25 January 1944 and was honorably discharged 25 May 1946 in the grade
of staff sergeant. His enlisted record of separation indicates the
highest rank held was staff sergeant.
The remaining applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed by
fire in 1973. Therefore, the facts surrounding his service in the
Army Air Corp cannot be verified.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommended the applicant's request be time barred. Based
on extremely limited records (records destroyed in 1973 fire at NPRC)
and the passage of time, it is not possible for us at this point to
determine if promotion to a higher grade was appropriate. We have
petitioned the applicant for additional documentation (DD Form 214,
promotion orders, financial statements) with no response. While the
applicant may have been deserving of promotion, in the absence of
documentation to the contrary, DPPPWB must assume he was discharge in
the proper grade--staff sergeant.
AFPC/DPPPWB complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 6
September 2002 for review and comment 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 an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded
that he should be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant.
Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these
uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. While
the applicant may have been deserving of promotion, in the absence of
documentation to the contrary, we must assume he was discharged in the
proper grade of Staff Sergeant. In view of the above, we agree with
the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed
as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.
Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 02-01639
on 16 October 2002 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chairman
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. Thomas J. Topolski, Jr., Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 29 Aug 02.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR dated 6 Sep 02.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR
Panel Chairman
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits B and C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR reviewed applicant's request and states that the letters attached to his application show that the initial paperwork submitted in November 2000 was not a final recommendation package,...
In support of his request the applicant provided documentation from the awarding authority indicating that if the EPR had been a "5" at the time it was originally rendered, he would have awarded the applicant an AFCM and subsequently upgraded the medal. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to recommend supplemental consideration for these cycles. ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR. Panel Chair AFBCMR 02-01144 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of...
TSgt O--- was removed as his supervisor in November 1997. The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed applicant’s request and states that provided he is otherwise eligible, if the 4 Jan 98 EPR were to be voided he would not become a selectee for the 99E6 promotion cycle. The applicant has established that a possible conflict existed between himself and the rater on the report closing 4 January 1998.
The close-out date of his Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) rendered for the period 3 Jun 98 through 14 Jan 99 be changed to reflect a date prior to 30 Dec 98. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01543
His referral Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 30 Jan 03, be removed from his records. We note that regardless of his commander's action, the court-martial conviction and referral EPR rendered him ineligible for promotion. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the close-out date of his AF Form 910, Enlisted...
In support of his request applicant provided, a personal statement, documents associated with his request for supplemental promotion consideration; and, an extract from AFI 36-2803, General Administrative Practices. Current Air Force promotion policy dictates that before a decoration is credited for a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cut-Off Date (PECD), and the date of the DÉCOR-6 must be before the date of selections for...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01867 INDEX CODE: 112.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he was promoted from E-2 (Airman) to E-3 (Airman First Class) prior to his disability retirement. DPPPWB states that in accordance with policy in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation, an...
In support of his request applicant provided copies of email communications, documents associated with his request for supplemental promotion consideration, his RDP, his AFAM, his AFAM orders, documents associated with the AFAM recommendation package, extracts from AFI 36-2803, Air Force Awards and Decoration Program; AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program; and the 86 Airlift Wing Awards and Decorations Guide; and, his AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet. Additional relevant facts...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03640
The DPPAC evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 3 Jan 03 for review and comment within 30 days. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 13 Dec 02, w/atch.
Current Air Force policy (AFI 36-2502) dictates that in order to be credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of a decoration must be on or before the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) and the award must be placed in official channels [date the RDP is signed] before the selections for that cycle are made. The author of the award and the applicant’s former commander assert that the RDP was placed in official channels in time but, due to the organization’s flawed...