ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1999-00371
INDEX NUMBER: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), retroactive
to the 1972-1973 time frame.
___________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 14 July 1999, the AFBCMR considered and denied applicant's
request for promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7),
retroactive to the 1972-1973 time frame. For an accounting of the
facts and circumstances surrounding the application, and the
rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of
Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Through his member of Congress, applicant requested reconsideration
of his appeal. He contends in its earlier decision, the AFBCMR
denied his request and stated their decision may be reconsidered if
the official promotion score notice were provided, but this
document no longer exists. He submitted signed, and notarized
statements from witnesses.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit G.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENTS OF FACTS:
The applicant was promoted to technical sergeant 1 Jul 68 and
retired in this grade on 1 Nov 73. He was credited with 25 years,
11 months, and 20 days total active military service.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. This Board
previously considered and denied applicant's appeal, which included
a statement from his immediate supervisor during the period in
question. We concluded that the applicant had not provided
sufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective
action. Applicant has now provided additional statements in
support of his appeal; however, after reviewing the evidence of
record, we are still not convinced that either an error or
injustice exists. We previously informed the applicant that if he
provided a copy of the official promotion score notice his request
would be reconsidered. We note that the applicant again has failed
to provide the promotion score notice. Applicant waited over
twenty years to file an appeal and Air Force records concerning his
promotion score have been destroyed. In the absence of an official
promotion score notice, we are not convinced that he should be
promoted to the grade of master sergeant. In view of the above
findings, favorable action on his application is not recommended.
2. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not
been shown a personal appearance with or without counsel will
materially add to our understanding of the issues 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 Docket Number BC-1999-
00371 in Executive Session on 7 September 2004, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. ROP, AFBCMR Docket Number BC-99-00371.
Exhibit G. DD Form 149, 29 Jan 99, w/atchs.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03729
He has served over 20 years of Regular active service. DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 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 victim of an error or injustice.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01899
DPP states, in order for him to receive retired pay in the grade of master sergeant, he must have been promoted to the grade of master sergeant and have served satisfactorily in that grade. It appears evidence provided by the applicant to the contrary can be attributed to an honorary promotion to master sergeant conferred upon the applicant by the State of Pennsylvania and was not a federally recognized promotion. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02796
The award was not in his records when he was initially considered for promotion. The last time the applicant was considered for promotion prior to retirement was cycle 95A7. 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.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01919
The HQ AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that he believes the inclusion in the MOI of the sentence, “In considering a DP recommendation, it is appropriate to consider the competitive circumstances under which the DP was awarded, as indicated on the PRF” violated the spirit of the SSB process. Based on the fact that...
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory and provides a “Late Decoration Recommendation” letter from his former commander that he recently found stored in his files and which he wants considered in his request for SSB consideration for his BPZ board [CY95A]. The former commander indicates that, after his departure, “the...
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that thirteen (13) days...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03330-2
To support his contentions, the applicant provided copies of his promotion order to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) (E-8), application for voluntary retirement, and addendum to application for voluntary retirement. As stated in their initial advisory, promotion history files are only maintained for a period of ten years; therefore, they have no way of knowing whether the applicant was considered for promotion to CMSgt during the timeframe in question (from cycle FY70 until his...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00144
DPPD states according to the VA Rating Decision dated 2 October 2006, the VA received applicant’s claim for service-connected compensation on 28 July 2005. Therefore, that is the appropriate CRSC effective date for his conditions. The applicant received this notification in the CRSC approval letter, dated 1 November 2006.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03330
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03330 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: UNKNOWN MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 May 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted a waiver of attending the Senior Non-Commissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA) due to his physical disability, and be advanced to the grade of...