Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02271
Original file (BC-2002-02271.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02271
            INDEX CODE:  100.00, 110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected  to  show  that  his  rank  at  the  time  of
discharge was sergeant instead of corporal.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was transferred from Keesler AFB, as a sergeant.  His records  were
lost.  He was reduced to a  private  at  Andrews  AFB  and  was  later
discharged as a corporal.  He feels his rank of sergeant  should  have
been reinstated with a one-grade increase for enlisting three years in
the Reserves, thereby earning the rank of staff sergeant.

In support of his appeal, the applicant  provided  copies  of  service
records showing he served in the grade of sergeant and was  discharged
as a corporal, and, other documents associated with the  issues  cited
in his contentions.  Applicant’s complete submission  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

It has been determined that  the  applicant’s  records  were  lost  or
destroyed  and   efforts   at   reconstruction   have   been   largely
unsuccessful.  Available records indicate the applicant entered active
duty on 27 March 1946 and was honorably  discharged  in  the  rank  of
corporal on 7 April 1947.  He served three years in the Army  Reserves
and was honorably discharged in the rank of corporal on 4 April 1950.

Other 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 relevant records have been destroyed or are no
longer available, memories have failed and witnesses are  unavailable.
Based on the limited records and  the  passage  of  time,  it  is  not
possible at this point in time to determine  the  exact  circumstances
regarding his reduction from sergeant to private.  In the  absence  of
documentation to the contrary (promotion order, financial  statements,
Report of Separation), they must  assume  he  was  discharged  in  the
proper grade—corporal.   A complete copy of the evaluation is attached
at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that the reason
for this request is that he was told that soldiers could be buried  at
Fort Snelling Cemetery at his highest grade held.  He states that he’s
not asking for anything else.  He was a very excellent and  forthright
soldier.  He never cost the AAF a minute’s trouble and always did more
than was asked of him.  He could get upset  at  the  AAF  at  Shepherd
Field for losing his  records  in  Basic  Training.   He  and  another
soldier were pulled out for two weeks, half way through and  they  had
to start all over again with a new group.  The AAF  lost  his  records
again when he was transferred from Keesler Field, MS to  SAC,  Andrews
Field, reducing him from sergeant to private.   He  states,  that  was
absolutely uncalled for.

He states that Major B--- called him in and said he would increase his
grade at every opening in the Table of Organization, which he did.  At
the time of discharge, he told him if he enlisted for three years,  or
in the Reserves; he had the authority to raise  his  grade  one  step,
which he did.  He never received notice of the grade increase.  That’s
the reason he never reenlisted a second time.

He worked for United Power Association as a  Senior  Systems  Controll
Supervisor controlling Fossil and Atomic Power Plants and  its  grids.
He bought and sold power, wrote orders for lineman,  electricians  and
power plant operators.  He retired with 35 years at age 59 and a  half
from United Power Association.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice.  Applicant’s records  are  not
available  for  review;  therefore,  circumstances   surrounding   his
appropriate grade at time of discharge cannot be verified.   Based  on
the evidence provided, it does appear that  the  applicant  served  on
active duty in the grade of sergeant and, for reasons unknown, he  was
transferred to the Reserve in the grade of corporal.  Applicant states
that due to his records being lost, he  entered  the  Reserve  in  the
grade of corporal and was told that his  grade  would  be  changed  to
sergeant.  As stated above, documentation to substantiate  applicant’s
allegations is missing.  After reviewing the  available  documentation
and noting applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board believes
that applicant’s grade at time of discharge from the Reserve should be
changed to sergeant.  In  this  regard,  the  majority  of  the  Board
believes that applicant’s allegations appear  reasonable  and  in  the
absence of any evidence that he was demoted, he should be separated in
the higher grade.  In view of the above findings, the majority of  the
Board recommends his records be  corrected  to  the  extent  indicated
below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that on 3 April  1950,  he
was promoted to the grade of sergeant and on  4  April  1950,  he  was
discharge from the Air Force Reserve in the grade of sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this  application  on  5
November 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
                 Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member

By a majority vote,  the  Board  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as
recommended.  Mr. Roj voted to deny applicant's request, but  does not
desire  to  submit  a  Minority  Report.   The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:







   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Jan 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 Sep 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 20 Sep 02.
   Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Response, dated 7 Oct 02, w/atch.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair







AFBCMR 02-02271
INDEX CODE:  131.00



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 on 3 April 1950, he was
promoted to the grade of sergeant and on 4 April 1950, he was
discharge from the Air Force Reserve in the grade of sergeant.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01118

    Original file (BC-2003-01118.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01793

    Original file (BC-2002-01793.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The patrolman reported that the applicant stated that he was not going to be handcuffed and he grabbed the patrolman’s arm. He also stated that the witnesses’ statement was not true. He contends that out of three alcohol incidents under the same commander, only the African Americans were punished.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01793A

    Original file (BC-2002-01793A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01793 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he provides four letters of character reference in support of the following original requests: a. A majority of the Board finds that the commander acted completely...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202507

    Original file (0202507.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement from his daughter and copies of his discharge documents. He was serving in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) at the time of discharge. The applicant’s daughter stated that her father was promised a promotion to the grade of master sergeant.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0202396

    Original file (0202396.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2004 | BC-2002-01793C

    Original file (BC-2002-01793C.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    THIRD ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01793 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The applicant requests reconsideration of the following previously denied requests: a. After reviewing the applicant’s complete evidence of record to include the new evidence, the Board again denied the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03978

    Original file (BC-2002-03978.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    When a member takes a different version than the others competing for promotion in his or her AFSC, the incorrect test version is equated through a scientific process, which allows the scores on two different versions to be compared. Equating procedures allows the Air Force to derive a score from the wrong test based on the correct mean and standard deviation, which makes the score comparable to the others. _________________________________________________________________ The following...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01793B

    Original file (BC-2002-01793B.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. Ms. Graham voted to grant the applicant’s requests and has attached a minority report at Exhibit R. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit M. Addendum Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Jan 03, w/atchs. A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01791

    Original file (BC-2002-01791.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01791 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His assignment history as indicated on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) viewed by the CY01 Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be corrected to reflect a duty title of “Strategic Airlift...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02787

    Original file (BC-2002-02787.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The “4” rating does not match the accomplishments for the reporting period; the feedback AF Form 931 marked to the extreme right margin stated he needed little or no improvement; he received no counseling from his supervisor if there was need for improvement from the last feedback prior to EPR closeout; his entire career reflects superior performance in all areas of responsibilities past and present,...