RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02536
INDEX NUMBER: 100.00, 110.00
COUNSEL: JOHN COOK
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, WD AGO Form 53-55, be
corrected to reflect sergeant versus corporal.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was promoted to the grade of sergeant before he left Guam
(approximately five weeks before being discharged). He has no
documentation reflecting he was promoted to the grade of sergeant
but states his records should contain evidence he was.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active duty in the Army Air Force on 20 Mar
43; he was discharged for the Convenience of the Government on
25 Feb 46, in the grade of corporal.
A similar appeal was considered and denied by the Board on 5 Mar
98.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the applicant’s request be denied based on
timeliness.
A review of the applicant’s records reveals no promotion orders to
indicate he was ever promoted to sergeant. His Enlisted Record and
Report of Separation reflects his grade at the time of discharge
and highest grade held as corporal.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant contends an agent was told of his promotion to sergeant
and stated that when the official document showing his promotion
was received, his records would be corrected. He did not follow up
until a speaker at a veteran’s meeting informed him to apply for
changes as needed. He was informed all of his records were burnt
in a fire in St. Louis. The ratings were posted on a squadron
bulletin board, no one received a paper notification. He wants the
correct rating on his stone when he passes on. (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. 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 their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the
absence of evidence substantiating that the applicant was promoted
to the grade of sergeant, 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 Docket Number BC-2004-
02536 in Executive Session on 19 October 2004, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Rita S. Looney, Panel Chair
Mr. Terry L. Scott, Member
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Oct 03.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 23 Aug 04.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Sep 04.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Sep 04, w/atch.
RITA S. LOONEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02595
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include the Joint Service Medal (JSAM) awarded for the period 1 Oct 02 to 30 Sep 03, be provided supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for all the appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 04E6, as an exception to policy. Exhibit D. Letter, applicant, dated 1 Dec 04. RITA...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02410
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02410 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 29 Jan 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant during promotion cycle 02E8 with a date of rank and effective date of 1 Sep 02. If the Board believes an injustice exists and...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02728
He served four years of active service. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPAPP2 states there is no documentation in the applicant’s personnel records to reflect he served or was temporarily assigned in Vietnam. Furthermore, the applicant did not respond to the request from Air Force office of primary responsibility requesting he provide documentation reflecting he served in Vietnam.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02171
The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the Air Force advisory, applicant notes that although his decoration was processed within the timelines indicated in AFI 36-2803, his decoration was processed well after 20 plus other awards had been approved for members of his crew. In further support of his appeal, applicant attaches a copy of a special...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02532
If applicant is reawarded 3P0X1 as a secondary AFSC, he would receive supplemental promotion consideration in the 9A000 AFSC (retraining or pending retraining) beginning with cycle 03E5. Applicant requests his 3P051 AFSC be reinstated as a secondary AFSC and that his promotion to the rank of staff sergeant (SSgt) be effective the date of the 03E5 promotion cycle. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02543
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02543 INDEX CODE 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflect service in Vietnam. Copies of HQ AFPC/DPAPP’s letter and the applicant’s response are at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPAPP...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02209
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02209 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: HERIBERTO A. HARTNACK HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 January 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of staff sergeant, based on the fact that he was a Prisoner of War (POW) during World War II. Applicant’s record indicates he was a POW...
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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-02048
The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. Based on their review of the applicant’s complete military record, they did not locate any documentation verifying his entitlement to the requested awards. After reviewing the documentation submitted by the applicant with his rebuttal to the Air Force evaluation, we have determined he does not meet the requirements for award of either the Air Force Recognition Ribbon (AFRR) or NCO PME Graduate Ribbon (NCOPMER).
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-04401
As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit F). After a thorough review of the available evidence, including the Board’s favorable consideration of two virtually identical appeals by individuals involved in the same incident for which the applicant received an Article 15, we believe sufficient doubt has been raised regarding the fairness and equity of the imposed punishment. Furthermore, since it appears the applicant’s referral EPR closing 17 Mar 06, which...