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
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01793
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
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...
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.
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
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
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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,...