RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00663
INDEX CODE: 131.03
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 4 SEPTEMBER 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be advanced from the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) to technical sergeant
(E-6). His overseas time on his DD Form 214 is incorrect.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
This was an unjust action to redline him for E-6. He was still on active
duty until April 1968. He would have cancelled his early out to retire from
the Air Force and reenlisted from three or four years.
In support of his application, applicant provides a letter to his
congressman, DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of
Transfer or Discharge, retirement order #AC-7196, a letter from his
congressman, AFP 36-2607, Applicant's Guide to the Air Force Board for
Correction of Military Records, Statement of Service, AF Form 7, Airman
Military Record, AF Form 899, Permanent Change of Station Order and
certificate of retirement.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant entered active military service in the Air Force on 29 July
1947 and was honorably retired on 31 July 1967 in the grade of staff
sergeant with a date of rank of 1 May 1952. He served 20 years and 2 days
of total active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial and states the applicant voluntarily extended
his enlistment for three months. His date of separation (DOS) changed from
24 April 1968 to 24 July 1968. On 20 June 1966, the applicant received a
letter notifying him that he was not being recommended for reenlistment. He
must either retire or be separated from the service on 24 July 1968 in
accordance with Chapter 3, AFM 39-9 (not selected for over 20-year
reenlistment). Based on this, he was also informed he was not considered
for promotion during the October 1966 cycle, and would not be considered
for future promotion cycles due to the board's decision. In accordance with
AFR 39-29, airmen were ineligible for promotion if they were ineligible or
nonrecommended for reenlistment. On 29 November 1966, applicant requested
his extension be cancelled for purposes of retirement upon completion of 20
years of service and acknowledged his promotion ineligibility.
AFPC/DPPPWB complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated he only requested
the info after his brother told him about cases from the Army. Therefore,
that is when he wrote to the Air Force. He is very sorry about the time
delay to get his records corrected after his retirement from the Air Force.
Applicant’s complete response 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 an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence
of record and applicant’s submission, the Board is not persuaded that the
applicant should be promoted to the grade of technical sergeant.
Applicant’s contentions are noted; 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. In this regard, the Board took
note the applicant received a letter of notification from the commander
that he was not recommend for reenlistment and he was not considered for
promotion consideration. In view of the above and absent persuasive
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable 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-2006-00663
in Executive Session on 26 September 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. James W. Russell III, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number BC-2006-
00663 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Available Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Apr 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Jun 06.
Exhibit E. Application’s Response, dated 28 Jun 06.
JAMES W. RUSSELL III
Panel Chair
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 | CY2003 | BC-2003-01827
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial noting that the applicant tested and was considered for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 95A6. He would have tested and been considered for promotion to the grade of technical sergeant during cycle 95E6; however, on 12 Aug 94, he signed and submitted an AF Form 1160 requesting retirement effective 1 Jul 95. The applicant retired on 1 Jul 95 and...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01036
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01036 INDEX CODE: 131.01 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) third oak leaf cluster (3OLC), awarded for the period 6 July 2003 through 7 August 2003, be included in his promotion cycle 04E6 selection process to technical sergeant. The...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-01013
DPPPWB obtained an AFPC/JA opinion regarding the IG’s substantiated allegation of abuse of authority and whether or not it constituted an error or injustice. An Air Force IG investigation substantiated an allegation that the applicant’s commander withheld his promotion to TSgt beyond the 12 months allowed without approval from the wing commander. JAMES W. RUSSELL III Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The Assistant Secretary AFBCMR...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01995
Instead, para 4.7.5.2 is the appropriate reference that applies to the applicant and it states, “…the LOE becomes a referral document attached to the report.” After reviewing the referral EPR, the rater did not attach the LOE to the applicant’s referral EPR, therefore, as an administrative correction, DPPPEP recommends the LOE be attached to the referral EPR with corrections made to the “From and Thru” dates. DPPPWB states the first time the contested report would normally have...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00316
In order for a decoration to be eligible to be considered in a promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the Promotion Eligibility Cutoff Date and the Recommendation for Decoration Printout must be before the date of selection for the cycle. From the evidence of record, the applicant’s decoration does not meet the criteria to be considered for promotion consideration for cycle 05E7. The letter from the applicant’s commander is duly noted; however, we do not...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03617
On 4 April 2001, the applicant was notified by her commander of her academic release from the NCOA and of the convening of an Academic Review Board. Based on the applicant’s DOR to TSgt, the first time she was considered for promotion to MSgt was cycle 02E7. The applicant was academically released from the NCOA and the CEPME commander denied the appeal.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02073
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02073 INDEX CODE: 110.03 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 Jan 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Extended Active Duty (EAD) date be changed from 25 Oct 05 to 11 Aug 05 to prevent a break in service, restore her promotion line number, and clear a debt for back pay and...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01452
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01452 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 November 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt) as if selected during promotion cycle 77S9. According to AFR 4-20, Table 35-12, Rule 29, Records Disposition Schedule,...