RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03867
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 JUNE 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of
staff or technical sergeant upon completion of Aerial Gunnery School
and assignment as an AAF Gunnery instructor.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Personnel completing these schools in earlier graduations received the
ranking of staff or technical sergeant.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from his
daughter, a copy of his WD AGO 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of
Separation, a copy of his discharge certificate, and a copy of a
letter from the National Personnel Records Center.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant’s master personnel record (MPR) appears to have been
destroyed by the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center
(NPRC) in St. Louis.
Based on the available documentation the following facts are provided.
Applicant was inducted into the Army Air Force on 26 April 1943 and
entered active duty on 3 May 1943. He performed duties as AAF Gunnery
Instructor. His highest grade held was corporal. On 16 February
1946, he was honorably discharged because of demobilization. He was
credited with 2 years, 6 months and 26 days of continental service and
2 months and 18 days of foreign service. His separation document
shows he was entitled to the American Theater Service Medal, European
African Middle Eastern Theater Service Medal, and Good Conduct Medal.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB states based on the extremely limited records (destroyed
by fire in 1973) and the passage of time, it is not possible for them
at this point to determine if promotion to a higher grade was
appropriate. While the applicant may have been deserving of
promotion, in the absence of documentation to the contrary, they must
assume he was discharged in the proper grade--corporal. They believe
that supervisors and commanding officers at the time were in a better
position to evaluate the applicant’s potential and eligibility for
promotion. They also believe that after serving almost three years of
active duty, his promotion history and eligibility for promotion would
have been reviewed at the time of discharge. The Air Force asserts
that the applicant’s delay regarding a matter now dating back over 57
years has greatly complicated its ability to determine the merits of
his position. Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s
request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 4 February 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded
to the applicant for review and response 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;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for the conclusion that the
applicant 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 this application in
Executive Session on 17 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B.J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 14 Jan 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Feb 05.
B. J. WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-02591
___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPD reviewed this application and recommended denial, stating, in part, applicant was separated from active service on 8 Aug 05 due to a physical disability and permanently disability retired under the provisions of Title 10 USC 1201. HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01244
The discharge authority approved his separation and ordered a general (under honorable conditions) discharge without probation and rehabilitation (P&R). DPPPWB states the application was not filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2303, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, (AFBCMR) paragraph 3.5, 1 March 1996. He gives no reason for his delay in petitioning the Board.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03605
DPPPWB states the application was not filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2303, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, (AFBCMR) paragraph 3.5, 1 March 1996. DPPPWB states in absence of any documentation to the contrary the assumption is that the applicant was discharged in the correct grade. He resigned from OCS, because he was eligible for discharge based on having 98 points, which is reflected on his honorable discharge certificate.
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02259
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial and states the applicant contends he was recommended for promotion to TSgt by his pilot and submits a letter from him stating the same. Should the applicant provide documentation that he was submitted for promotion to technical sergeant, the Board would be willing to reconsider the case. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Sep 05.
DPPPWB assumes that his eligibility for promotion was reviewed during the 11 months preceding his separation, especially since he was awarded the Silver Star for his actions during the period Mar 44 to Sep 44. Since, at this late date, there is no way to know when the applicant would have met the established eligibility criteria for promotion, we believe that the applicant will be afforded proper and fitting relief by correcting his records to show he was promoted to the grade of technical...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02923
In the applicant’s case, he waited 49 years before he petitioned the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). They have reviewed the extremely limited records (records destroyed in 1973 at NPRC) on the applicant and find no documentation regarding a promotion to SSgt or any other enlisted grade. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02923 in Executive Session on 17 December...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02414
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02414 INDEX CODE: 111.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 FEB 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His enlisted performance report closing 13 Sep 05 be voided. ___________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEP reviewed...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03248
DPPPWB advises that Air Force promotion policy dictates the closeout date of a decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) and the signature date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for a cycle in question. Should the decoration be upgraded and the applicant promoted to the grade of MSgt with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Sep 89, DPPPWB recommends the Board adjust the applicant’s retirement date to 31 Aug...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-03144
He was ineligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of staff sergeant during the 03E5 cycle because he did not possess the required Air Force Specialty Code skill level. The unit commander at that time could have approved a skill level waiver but did not. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that he was promoted to...