RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02465
INDEX CODE: 112.02
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge record show that he was honorably discharged as a Staff
Sergeant (SSgt) instead of as a corporal.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Commanding Officer (CO) promised him that if he attended certain
training he would be promoted from corporal to Sergeant. He attended
the training and upon returning to his duty station found that he had
a new CO. The new CO promised he would check with the former CO to
make sure he intended to promote the applicant. During the time this
was happening he was notified that his field (base) was being shut
down and that he and numerous others were to be discharged for
“Convenience of the Government.” He was told that everyone to be
discharged was to be promoted one step (Staff Sergeant/SSgt for the
applicant) on “separation from service orders.” When he did not find
his name on the promotion list he immediately contacted his CO who
informed him that when he arrived at the headquarters he would ensure
his name would be placed on the list. In the meantime, his CO
authorized an “indefinite delay enroute” that would enable him to
spend some time at his home in Chicago until he was to report to Fort
Sheridan for discharge. Upon arrival at Fort Sheridan he found that
his unit designation (nomenclature) had been erased. He was told that
the nomenclature had to be changed to the unit designation that had
been on his “indefinite delay enroute” orders. Those orders were
never returned to him and he subsequently does not know what outfit he
officially belonged to at the time of his discharge. He tried for
five years after discharge to get his promotions by working with the
Veterans Administration (VA), the American Legion and the Army Reserve
Headquarters, who informed him that his records had been destroyed in
the fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NRPC) in St Louis,
MO. He recently was advised by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) to
apply to the AFBCMR for relief.
In support of his appeal the applicant had provided a personal
statement, a letter from the VFW to the applicant, copies of his
honorable discharge certificate, his Enlisted Record and Report of
Separation, and copies of several orders indicating travel between
stations, completion of training, promotion (to Corporal), and
discharge.
His appeal, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps on 22 September 1942 and
entered extended active duty on 14 April 1943. The highest official
grade held was Corporal. He served a total of three years, five
months and six days of combined active and inactive duty. He was
discharged for purposes of “demobilization” effective 27 February
1946.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial. They state that they petitioned the
applicant for additional official documentation and he responded.
They informed the applicant, based on the documentation provided, they
can find no evidence that the applicant was ever promoted to Sgt or
SSgt. They therefore must assume that he was discharged in the proper
grade of corporal.
DPPPWB’s complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
12 September 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. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded
that his uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Based
on the lack of official documentation and the applicant’s inability to
provide such, there is no basis on which to grant relief.
Consequently, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed
to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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-
2003-02465 in Executive Session on 28 October 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Sharon B. Seymour, Member
Ms. Leslie E. Abbott, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Jul 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Available Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Aug 03, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Sep 03.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02310
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. On 12 Aug 02, the 9 AETF commander determined the Article 15 would be filed in the applicant’s officer selection record (OSR). On 11 Sep 02, the applicant was notified that the 21 SW commander at Peterson AFB was recommending the applicant’s name be removed from the promotion list.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02269
In support of her appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement, a Certificate of Death from the state of ---, a copy of a court document naming the deceased’s wife as executor of his estate, copies of orders awarding the Air Medal and an oak leaf cluster to the Air Medal to the deceased member, an obituary, a congressional request for information from C/M Jo Bonner of Alabama, a copy of the deceased members Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, a copy of his Army Qualification...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04088
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 6 February 2004 for review and response (Exhibit C). Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. Notwithstanding any argument concerning the highest grade the applicant held on active duty, the applicant’s separation document appears to indicate that he was...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00839
The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Reports. The first time he was considered was in cycle 01E5. He was considered again for promotion in cycle 02E5.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00183
On 16 September 2005, the applicant transferred to the Air Force Reserve where he is currently serving in the grade of senior airman (SrA) (E-4). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request to reinstate his promotion to SSgt. His complaint is not based on whether the commander has the authority to issue an LOR, but that the commander issued an LOR when he was aware no evidence was presented...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00257
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was told by her recruiter that she would be able to participate in the CLRP program and further told that once she provided a promissory letter the Air Force would automatically pay for her loan. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant entered the delayed enlistment program on 18 Sep 02 and enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 13 May 03. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01020
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied. An exception to policy skill level waiver request was submitted and approved on 6 November 2003. We have seen no evidence showing the applicant was not provided fair and equitable promotion consideration in accordance with existing policy and procedures.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-00049
The applicant’s other conditions were not separately unfitting at the time of evaluation in the disability evaluation system and did not warrant separate ratings. The BCMR Medical Consultant states the fact the applicant has been granted certain service connected disability rating from the DVA does not entitle him to Air Force disability compensation or a change in existing military disability ratings. The BCMR Medical Consultant’s evaluation is at Exhibit...
Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. They recommend the applicant's request be time barred or denied on its merits (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 September 2002, for review and response.
DPPPWB further states the Air Force, after 56 years and limited records, cannot determine if the applicant should have been promoted earlier than he was. Therefore based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit D). He further states that he was promoted at the time of his discharge and the promotion was not affiliated with his flying years, the practice at that time was to promote each enlisted man one grade at time of discharge (Exhibit F).