RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2005-01839
INDEX CODE: 126.04
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 12 December 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The award of his 7-skill level Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) be
effective 23 October 1954 versus 19 March 1963.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The non-inclusion of his upgrade until 19 March 1963 resulted in him being
denied promotion for 12 years.
In support of his application, he provides copies of Personnel Action
Memorandums (PAMs), Special Orders, discharge, and retirement documentation
from his military personnel service record. The applicant’s complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 13 August 1948, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the
age of 18 in the grade of private (E-1) for a period of three years. He
was progressively promoted to the rank of technical sergeant (E-6)
effective and with a date of rank of 1 December 1967. According to his Air
Force Form 7, Airmen Military Record, the applicant received a PAFSC of
70270 effective 19 March 1963.
The applicant was released from active duty on 31 March 1970 with an
honorable characterization of service and retired effective 1 April 1970.
He served 21 years, and 28 days on active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request. DPPPWB states
that on 26 July 2005, AFPC/DPPAT, the office of primary responsibility, was
unable to verify the applicant’s claim of being awarded the PAFSC 70270
effective 23 October 1954. DPPAT states the PAM 164 provided by the
applicant, does not indicate the PAFSC 70270 was awarded. The PAM 164
indicates the anticipated date of completion of training as 23 October
1954, resulting in a change of PAFSC; however, it does not document
completion of 7-skill level training. Evidence of record indicates the
applicant was awarded PAFSC on 19 March 1963. On 26 July 2005, DPPAT
requested additional official documentation be provided by the applicant to
support his claim.
DPPPWB states even if official documentation is presented showing award of
the 7-skill level prior to March 1963, there is no way to go back more than
50 years and determine if the applicant would have been selected for
promotion. Promotion history files are only maintained for a period of ten
years as outlined in AFR 4-20, Table 35-12, Rule 29, Records Disposition
Schedule. It is DPPPWB’s opinion that the applicant’s unreasonable delay
has caused prejudice to the Air Force. Relevant records have been
destroyed or are no longer available; therefore, making it impossible to
determine if the applicant would have been promoted had he been awarded his
7-skill level on 23 October 1954. The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states that the 23 July 1953 PAM was quite explicit in that
his primary AFSC was changed to 70270 after the completion of the 90-day
training period. This action did not just terminate. He was assigned to
this organization until August 1955. During this period, he was filling a
7-skill level as the NCOIC of classified material for the Directorate of
Operations. This position required a Top Secret security clearance which
was granted. It was his understanding that his AFSC of 70270 was
commensurate with his position. The applicant’s response, with
attachment, 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. Evidence has not been presented which
would lead us to believe that the applicant was awarded his 7-skill level
prior to 19 March 1963. We note the applicant’s contentions that his PAFSC
was upgraded to the 7-skill level upon completion of his 90-day training
period ending 23 October 1954; however, we find no evidence to support his
claim. Without evidence to the contrary, we agree with the opinions and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibilities and
adopt their rationale as a basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of either an error or an injustice. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this appeal.
_________________________________________________________________
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 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen B. O’Sullivan, Member
Ms. LeLoy W. Cottrell, Member
The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2005-01839 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Jun 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Jul 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Aug 05.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 29 Aug 05, w/atch.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02148 INDEX NUMBER: 131.04 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His date of rank and effective date of promotion to the grade of senior airman (SrA) be changed from 11 May 1998 to 28 February 1998. DPPPWB stated the basic eligibility criteria for promotion to senior airman (SrA) is not be...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02799
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advised that the applicant was erroneously considered, tested, and selected for promotion to MSgt during cycle 05E7 in AFSC 2T1X1. Based on the 14 Dec 04 promotion testing notification, and data listed in the MilPDS and the WAPS, the applicant was erroneously considered, tested, and selected for promotion in his 2T AFSC to MSgt during cycle 05E7. We therefore recommend he be provided...
The Board again considered the application, with this new information, and on 1 Jul 97, a majority of the Board recommended partial relief in the form of supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant by the Calendar Year 1995E7 (CY95E) promotion cycle (see Exhibit U). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the applicant’s requests and indicated that...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-01726A
The Board again considered the application, with this new information, and on 1 Jul 97, a majority of the Board recommended partial relief in the form of supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of master sergeant by the Calendar Year 1995E7 (CY95E) promotion cycle (see Exhibit U). _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed the applicant’s requests and indicated that...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00405
In accordance with AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.1, Rule 2, dated 6 August 2002, a member must possess a PAFSC at the 5-skill level by the respective Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date (PECD) for the cycle. They have no way of knowing whether the applicant’s commander would have approved a skill level waiver for cycle 02E5, especially since he had only been on active duty 52 days as of the PECD. He did not possess the skill level required, nor did he receive a skill...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02035
During the Military Personnel Flight’s (MPF) attempt to correct his AFSC, he was told to test with the wrong AFSC because he would get consideration. Since the effective date of this change was after the promotion eligibility cutoff date for cycle 91B5 (30 Sep 90), he was correctly considered for promotion in AFSC 457X2D during that cycle. As noted by the Enlisted Promotion and Military Testing Branch office, the applicant was considered in the correct AFSC for cycles 91B5, 92A5 and 92B5;...
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: Applicant’s military personnel records reflects that the applicant, a former United States Air Force Academy cadet, was ordered to extended active duty on 1 Jun 94. The applicant erroneously tested for promotion to staff sergeant for the 95E5 cycle on 8 May 95.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01941
The evidence of record reflects the applicant’s AFSC was withdrawn for failing to progress in upgrade training, which resulted in removal of his line number. ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: The majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. B. J. WHITE-OLSON Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2006-01941 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02310
Not every IDMT-qualified member was identified, mostly because they were not in an IDMT position. Only those individuals assigned to an IDMT 4N0X1C CAFSC position at the time of the conversion were considered for promotion as an IDMT in the CY05 cycle. As to whether some individuals were incorrectly promoted because they were “lucky” enough to be identified in the wrong CAFSC, promotion selections are “tentative pending verification by the MPF” (AFI 36-2502) and airmen are not “to...
A complete copy of the Addendum to Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit H. In an application, dated 11 November 1997, the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of his application. Hebo, his Airman Performance Reports (APRs) for his tour on Okinawa clearly show a pattern of indifferent attitude toward his training, his job, and the Air Force, Therefore, they recommend denial of his request for award of the AFGCM, A complete copy of the Air Force...