RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00118
INDEX CODE: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 July 2007
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His discharge records be corrected to reflect the rank of airman first
class (E-4), and he receive all back pay.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Despite the fact that he earned the rank of airman first class, he never
received the rank or pay because Major N--- unfairly gave the promotion to
someone else. The major also committed other unjust acts of prejudice,
such as losing his pay records 4 times during promotion periods over the 2
years he was under his command.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 16
November 1960, for a period of 4 years and later extended the enlistment
for a period of 9 months. He received his 3-skill level Air Force
Specialty Code (AFSC) on 23 December 1960. He was progressively promoted
to the grade of airman second class (E-3), with a date of rank (DOR) of 1
June 1961. He received his 5-skill level AFSC on 26 March 1962. On
15 March 1965, he was released from active duty and transferred to the Air
Force Reserve in the grade of airman second class. He had completed 4
years and 9 months of active service. He was honorably discharged from the
Air Force Reserve on 15 June 1966, in the grade of airman second class.
Applicant’s Airman Performance Report (APR) profile, follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
14 Sep 61 4-2
2 Aug 62 7-3
2 Aug 63 7-3
2 Aug 64 8-3
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, that
applicant’s request should be time barred; however, should the Board chose
to decide the case, it should be denied based on a lack of official
documentation. Applicant’s records contain no documentation showing that
he was promoted to the grade of E-4. The minimum requirements for
promotion consideration to E-4 are that the individual have 8 months time-
in-grade, possess a 3-skill level AFSC, and be recommended by the
commander. Supervisors and commanding officers at the time were in a
better position to evaluate his potential and eligibility for promotion.
Further, after serving 4 years and 9 months of active duty, his promotion
history and eligibility for promotion would have been reviewed at the time
of separation.
The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10
February 2006, for review and comment, within 30 days. However, 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. Although the applicant met two of the
three minimum eligibility requirements for promotion consideration to E-4,
i.e., 8 months time-in-grade and possessed a 3-skill level AFSC, there is
no evidence he met the third and final requirement of having been
recommended for promotion by the commander. While the applicant contends
his failure to be promoted was an act of prejudice, he has failed to
provide documentary evidence to support this contention. 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 Docket Number BC-2006-00118
in Executive Session on 14 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Dec 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 30 Jan 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 06.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03391
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03391 INDEX CODE: 131.09 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 MAY 2007 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the rank of E-4, Sergeant, effective at the time of discharge. Applicant states, he was told that he would be promoted to E-4, on his DD Form 214, but...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-00338
According to a letter provided by the applicant, the WAPS Testing Control Officer believed the applicant would test for promotion to the grade of TSgt in his old AFSC of 2A651B due to the system showing a date initially entered retraining (DIERT) of 9 Jan 04, which was after the promotion eligibility cutoff date (PECD) of 31 Dec 03. We further note that the Air Force’s scoring his test against the wrong shred of the correct AFSC and erroneously notifying him that he had been selected for...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-02607
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-02607 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 17 Feb 07 __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7) as if selected during cycle 00E7. If the applicant had been promoted during cycle 00E7, his date of rank...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00400
Based on applicant’s DOR to Senior Airman (SrA), he was eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt for cycle 04E5; however, he did not possess the required 5 skill level by the promotion eligibility cutoff date (31 Mar 04) in accordance with AFI 36-2502, Table 2.1, Rule 2. The applicant’s name appeared on a roster reflecting that he was in training status code (TSC) “F” for this cycle as he still had not attained the required 5 skill level by the Promotion Effective Cutoff Date (PECD) 31...
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 | 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 | CY2005 | BC-2005-01991
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01991 INDEX CODE: 106.00, 100.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214 reflect an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 81150 rather than 81130, and his 1985 discharge be upgraded from general to honorable. According to his Enlisted...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00403
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPWB states that a review of the applicant’s record reveals only one report was actually indorsed by MSgt B--- (28 January 1966 - 27 January 1967). To be considered for promotion to master sergeant, an individual must have 24 months time- in-grade, possess a 7-skill level Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), and be recommended by the commander. They found nothing in his record to indicate an error or injustice was made that...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02631
Although the UMD applicant provided reflects that a staff sergeant position existed, it does not justify placing a master sergeant 7-level against that position. In support of his request, he submits Enlisted Performance Reports (EPRs) reflecting his DAFSC as 8J000, statements from the squadron commander and command chief master sergeant, Unit Manning Documents (UMDs), and a WAPS promotion testing notification for cycle 02E8 listing his AFSC as 8J000. ...