RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01196
INDEX CODE: 131.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His deceased father be promoted to Master Sergeant (MSgt/E-7).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After many recommendations, his father was never promoted to MSgt.
The applicant, recently going over some old papers that belonged to
his father, came across some evaluations that showed that his father
had been placed at the top of his field. He noted also that his
father had been recommended for promotion to MSgt at least 3 years
prior to his retirement. Applicant notes that his father had received
an Outstanding Unit Award twice. And, that upon retirement, his
father received the Military Merit Award. He believes the Air Force
could have done one more thing for his father, and that was to promote
him to MSgt.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a copy of a
letter he wrote to the President, copies of his father’s birth and
death certificates, a copy of a letter of appreciation from President
Johnson to the 89th Military Airlift Wing commander, wherein the
President asks that a copy be placed into each member of the 89th’s
record, and several other documents from his father’s military record.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The deceased member enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 June 1949.
He attained the rank of Technical Sergeant (TSgt/E6) with a date of
rank of 1 June 1965. He applied for voluntary retirement with 20
years or more active service and was retired effective 31 July 1969.
He had served 20 years, 1 month, and 10 days.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application and recommended that short of
the Board denying the case on its merits, DPPPWB recommends
applicant’s request be time barred. DPPPWB noted the untimeliness of
the application. During the time frame between 1949 and 1969, the
minimum qualifications for promotion to MSgt were 2 years time in
grade, a 7-skill level in his Air Force Specialty, and to be
recommended by ones commander. DPPPWB notes that these were minimum
requirements for promotion and in no way a guarantee that one would be
promoted. Finally, DPPPWB finds nothing in the former member’s record
to indicate an error or injustice was made that prevented the former
member’s promotion to MSgt.
DPPPWB’s complete 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
23 May 2003 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and
find that the applicant’s father served his country honorably for over
20 years and was recognized appropriately throughout his career.
However, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our conclusion that the deceased member has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 BC-
2003-01196 in Executive Session on 5 August 2003, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Ms. Jean A. Reynolds, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Apr 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Decedent's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 2 May 03.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 May 03.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
In the applicant's case, he waited almost 7 years after he states he discovered the alleged error or injustice before he filed a claim, although the applicant knew when he applied for retirement in 3 Oct 67, the highest grade he held on active duty was master sergeant (MSgt). Therefore, based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit C). In the applicant's case, the grade is MSgt (Exhibit D).
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00059
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served in the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) from 1 October 1974 to 3 December 1974; therefore, he should be retired in that grade. The DPPRRP evaluation is at Exhibit D. The SAFPC Legal Advisor concurs with DPPPWB that denial of the applicant’s request is appropriate since he voluntarily refused promotion to MSgt. In response to DPPRRP’s request for review, the SAFPC Legal Advisor states that...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01869
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After formal selection and official announcement by the Air Force of his promotion to MSgt, his Center Commander informed him of a discrepancy which reverses his promotion selection. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After formal selection and official announcement by the Air Force of his promotion to MSgt, his Center Commander informed him of a discrepancy which reverses his promotion selection. A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03761
At the time of his discharge from the Air Force, he had completed 14 years, 4 months and 17 days of active military service. AFPC/DPPRRP’s evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that she spoke with an old friend of her father’s who told her that her father did not apply for voluntary retirement from the Air Force, as he was evidently aware of the Air Force...
Based on his second nonselection for promotion, he was considered and not selected for continuation by the CY02B Continuation Board. Although the applicant's commander and other officers who have served with the applicant support continuation, the applicant's record supports the continuation board's decision to not offer him continuation. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air...
The applicant’s records under this selection process must be better than all the records below the board score required for selection and equal to or better than at least one of the records that had the board score needed for promotion. If the applicant had been considered by the initial 00E8 Evaluation Board he would have needed a board score of 352.50 to have been selected. During the supplemental process, his records were benchmarked with three records that a received a 352.50 board...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01460
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01460 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 Nov 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The deceased member’s grandson (applicant) requests that his grandfather (member) be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7). A thorough review of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01667
They also find no promotion order indicating he was ever selected for promotion prior to retirement AFPC/DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 5 August 2005 for review and response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00734
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC 2003-00734 INDEX CODE: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Airman Performance Report (APR) rendered for the period 2 June 1977 through 1 June 1978 be declared void and he be provided supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant. Applicant’s performance...