RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01529
INDEX CODE: 107.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His DD Form 214 be corrected to reflect his foreign service at
Lakenheath AFB and that his specialty number reflect he was an
Airborne Electronic Counter Measure (ECM) Operator.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
These items are important and need to be listed on his DD Form 214.
Applicant's complete submission, with an attachment, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was released from active duty on 15 October 1952. He served
4 years, 10 months and 4 days of total service for pay purposes. His
DD 214 reflects three months and one day of foreign service.
There is an AF Form 1768, Staff Summary Sheet, prepared by the
Assignment Advisor, Directorate of Assignments, in the applicant’s
records confirming the applicant served three months and one day of
Foreign Service in England. The Advisor recommends posting the
Foreign Service to the applicant’s records.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPAC states a review of the documents the applicant initially
submitted did not substantiate his request. DPPAC, on 9 September
2002, requested the applicant provide additional documentation. The
applicant's response did not provide any additional information to
support his request. The applicant’s personnel records substantiates
that at the time of his separation his AFSC was 29353. Although, the
documents
indicate he may have performed electronic counter measures (ECM)
duties, at that time these duties were included in the overall duties
of the Airborne Radio Operator (293X3). The AFSC for Airborne
Electronic Counter Operator (293X4) was not established as a separate
identifier in the classification structure until 1 March 1954. DPPAC
recommends denying the applicant’s request since he was discharged
prior to the AFSC for ECM was created.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
27 November 2002, 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and the 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 an injustice.
The applicant requested that on his DD Form 214 be corrected to
reflect an AFSC as an Airborne Electronic Counter Measures (ECM)
Operator (293X4). It appears the applicant may have performed some of
the duties of an ECM operator; however, during that time period these
duties were included in the overall duties of the Airborne Radio
Operator (293X3). As noted by the Air Force, the AFSC for ECM
Operator was not established as a separate identifier until 1 March
1954. Since the applicant was released from active duty on 15 October
1952 the AFSC he seeks was not yet established. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
4. With respect to the applicant’s request that his DD Form 214 be
corrected to reflect his foreign service, we have been advised that
this will be administratively corrected.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01529 in Executive Session on 11 March 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. George Franklin, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 2 May 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAC, dated 5 Nov 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Nov 02.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-00615
His records be corrected to reflect award of the Special Experience Identifier (SEI) for Stinger Missiles to Security Police Personnel, and the United States Air Force (USAF) Missile Badge. They indicated that the applicant was not eligible for any Navy marksmanship awards, as he was not on active duty with the Navy; he was in the Air Force. Since the applicant was on active duty in the Air Force, he would not be authorized to wear another service’s devices on awards earned while in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2004-03602
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03602 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 5 MAR 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States be corrected to accurately reflect his Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 96150 as Senior (Sr) Air Policeman. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02838
In support of applicant’s appeal, he submitted a personal statement; an email, dated 19 May 03, from his military personnel flight to 4th AF/DPM concerning contractual errors; Reserve Order P- 045 reflecting promotion to staff sergeant, effective 1 Jul 91; copies of a 1 Sep 91 training certificate, a Report of Individual Personnel (RIP), dated 31 Jul 91, and a DD Form 2AF (Reserve) ID Card issued 17 Aug 91, all reflecting the rank of staff sergeant; copies of DD Form 214, Certificate of...
The brief contains information that will be on the OSB at the central board. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 16 August 2002, for review and response within 30 days. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we are not sufficiently persuaded that the applicant should be...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 93-00230 INDEX NUMBER: 128.00;133.03; 129.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His retired pay be computed based on the years of service for basic pay versus years of active service for retirement, and that his retired grade be changed from airman first class to technical sergeant. ...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that although the 1 October 1970 mission may have been classified at the time, the proposed citation is entirely unclassified, except for identying the enemy territory as Combodia, and was unclassified at that time. AFPC/DPPPR does not believe sufficient justification has been provided to show that the applicant was not recommended for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01325
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His DD Form 214 should reflect the rank of airman first class, he completed 3 years of high school, he was awarded the ARCOM, the GCM and his AFSC should be 90250. Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. The DPPPWB’s evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPAC recommends denial.
_________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been awarded the DFC for his actions on 15 March 1971 as an Airborne Interpreter; however, due to the then classified nature of the mission and the drawn down of United States forces in Southeast Asia, he was not. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 21 Aug 02 for review and response. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AFPC/DPPPR does not believe sufficient justification has been provided to show that the applicant was not recommended for the DFC because of the classified nature of his mission. The AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A representative of the Rustic FAC Association states that a number of interpreters having similar duties were awarded the DFC based on...