RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01437
INDEX CODE: 131.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted from staff sergeant to technical sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
As a flight engineer with the XXXXXX Air National Guard (XXANG), the
operations officer abused him during a flight. Consequently, he
determined to not reenlist with the XXANG. The chief flight engineer
told him he would take care of the matter and make sure he was
promoted to technical sergeant if he would reenlist. The operations
officer demoted the chief flight engineer as a result of his action to
help him and then promoted another man in his place. The operations
officer eventually offered the applicant $1,000 to reenlist. He
refused the offer and left the XXANG for eventual membership in the
YYYYY ANG (YYANG).
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal
statement, copies of pertinent telegrams, newspaper articles, flight
logs from the XXANG, a patent application, medical documentation, and
individual flight records.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant served with the XXANG as an airborne mechanic through
June 1962 when he was reassigned as a flight engineer. He served in
that capacity until 28 March 1964 when he was discharged from the
XXANG. On 25 October 1965, he enlisted in the YYANG as a flight
engineer. He served with the YYANG until 17 June 1966 when he was
honorably discharged at the convenience of the government. At the
time of his discharge he was serving in the grade of staff sergeant
and had accumulated 11 years, 7 months, and 23 days of combined
active, Reserve and ANG service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ANG/DPPI notes the applicant’s submission is well beyond the three-
year time bar statute set forth in 10 United States Code (USC)
1552(b). In addition to the fact that this case refers to events that
happened over 40 years ago, the applicant has provided no
documentation or specific evidence that an error or injustice ever
occurred in the manner he sets forth, nor has he presented any
documentation indicating he was recommended for promotion. DPPI
states that in addition to being untimely under the statute of
limitations, the inexcusable delay in submitting his application has
resulted in the possible loss of records, destruction or loss of other
evidence, and renders uncertain the availability of pertinent
witnesses. DPPI has nothing with which to investigate or confirm his
allegations and therefore recommends denial of his request.
ANG/DPPF’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant asks that the timeliness issue be waived in the interest
of justice. He had forgotten or misplaced the entire episode until he
began application for a patent whereupon he remembered the incident
and wishes to receive the promotion he was promised.
Applicant’s complete rebuttal, with attachments, is 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. 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 of abuse at the hands of a senior
officer, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the Air Force. Further, he provided no evidence
to show he had been recommended for promotion to technical sergeant.
Therefore, 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.
Consequently, in the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary,
we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in
this application.
4. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issue(s) involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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-
2004-01437 in Executive Session on 28 September 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Apr 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 29 Jul 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Aug 04, w/atchs.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01288
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was discharged from the TN ANG for unsatisfactory participation on 31 May 1997 after serving seven years, nine months, and six days of combined Reserve component and Regular Air Force service. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and while we sympathize with the applicant’s civilian employment predicament at the time, there is simply no...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02209
His commander had not submitted his name to the promotion board. DPPI states the applicant’s records contain no evidence to support his statement that he was ever recommended for promotion. The NY ANG holds that had an oversight been committed regarding his promotion, it would have been corrected during the year that passed between the time the board met and the applicant retired.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2003-04285
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, an Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) member of the Arizona ANG (AZ ANG), was laterally transferred into a full-time GS-09 civilian position attached to a military position at the grade of SMSgt. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03055
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03055 INDEX CODE: 128.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be awarded cash enlistment and reenlistment bonuses for both periods of her service in the Air National Guard (ANG): 1997 for three years and 2003 for six years. The criteria for receipt of enlistment/reenlistment bonuses in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03277
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-03277 INDEX CODE: 112.02 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His appointment date in the Air National Guard (ANG) of 7 April 2003 be changed to 19 May 2003. The applicant was appointed under the auspices of AFI 36-2005, dated 1 May 1998, wherein it states that prior service officers may be...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01075
By transferring to the AFR one month before his date of eligibility, he was not included in the AFR promotion process in time to meet the promotion board to captain as would have been directed by ARPCM 02-21. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02805
DOF’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 23 April 2004 for review and comment within 30 days. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03307
The letter asked that he call and he did so numerous times, but received no answer. He returned to duty with the ANG on 20 November 1984 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 October 1994. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: While the applicant appreciates the ANG’s recommendation that his former grade be reinstated, he provides evidence he was within weeks or...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04040
ANG/DPPI’s evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s vice commander (WADS/CV) responded on behalf of the applicant and notes that the ANG/DPPI evaluation, while factually correct, does not address circumstantial process shortfalls particular to the applicant’s case. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02784
INDEX CODE: 131.04 BC-2003-02784 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: APPLICANT Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in...