Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00792
Original file (BC-2006-00792.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00792
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  Yes


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  15 Sep 07


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be administratively promoted to the grade of Chief Master  Sergeant
(CMSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was promoted to MSgt on 23 Dec 51 and retired in that grade  on  30
Apr 70.  He believes he was not promoted any higher because he exerted
political influence to get assistance  in  getting  an  assignment  to
Japan where his future wife resided.

He was never promoted beyond the  grade  of  MSgt  as  punishment  for
getting  assistance  from  his  Congressman.   He  would  like  to  be
recognized for his years of service.

In support of his appeal, applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214,
the citation for an Air Force Commendation Medal, and a  citation  for
the Bronze Star Medal.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant served total combined Army and Air Force service  of  26
years 6 months, and 28 days active service  and  was  retired  in  the
grade of MSgt effective 1 May 70.  He was promoted  to  the  grade  of
MSgt effective 23 Dec 51.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s  request.   They
provide a summary of how the promotion process worked during the  time
the  applicant  served.   DPPPWB  notes  there  is  nothing   in   the
applicant’s record to show he was ever promoted to a grade higher than
MSgt.  They cannot verify whether the applicant  was  ever  considered
for promotion to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant  since  promotion
files are only maintained for a period  of  ten  years.   DPPPWB  also
notes that there is nothing in the applicant’s records  indicating  an
error or injustice occurred that prevented the applicant’s  promotion.


The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
14 Apr 06 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a  response
has not been received.

_________________________________________________________________

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
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.  Therefore, in the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  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-2006-
00792 in Executive Session on 18 May 06, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
      Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
      Ms. Leloy W. Cottrell, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Mar 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 28 Mar 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Apr 06.




                                   MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01460

    Original file (BC-2005-01460.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01460 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 2 Nov 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The deceased member’s grandson (applicant) requests that his grandfather (member) be promoted to the grade of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7). A thorough review of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01397

    Original file (BC-2007-01397.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served 23 years of continuous active duty service during which time he received only one senior noncommissioned officer promotion (SNCO) to master sergeant (MSgt). The remaining 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 at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01526

    Original file (BC-2004-01526.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01526 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted from the grade of airman second class (A2C) to airman first class (A1C). There are no other promotion orders in his record to indicate he was ever promoted to A1C. We took notice of the applicant's...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01452

    Original file (BC-2006-01452.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00851

    Original file (BC-2005-00851.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant alleges these evaluation boards would not consider anyone for promotion if they were not an NCO Academy graduate. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the Air Force evaluations, the applicant notes that he was eligible for promotion during the senior master sergeant boards held in 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975. The applicant indicates agreement...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04036

    Original file (BC-2002-04036.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was not convinced by the documentation submitted by the applicant and denied his request. DPPPE further states that Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a matter of record. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: Upon review of the Air Force evaluations, the applicant states the EPR appeal board stated the gortex jacket and boots...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00166

    Original file (BC-2006-00166.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, after thorough review of the evidence of record, it is our opinion that the comments of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility are supported by the evidence of record. We find no evidence of error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the applicant's submission, we do not believe he has suffered from an injustice. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03434

    Original file (BC-2005-03434.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    MSgt K---, a member of his AFS (4Y0X0), was attending the First Sergeant Academy and her record was scored in the 4Y0X0 career field. Each individual's record was corrected, they were provided supplemental promotion consideration, and not selected for promotion in the 8F000 CAFSC. Therefore, the CAFSC effective date would be the date assigned duty--11 Nov 04.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02228

    Original file (BC-2006-02228.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    They also stated his request for promotion to TSgt should be denied based on merit as they found nothing in his record to indicate an error or injustice was made that prevented him from being promoted or considered for promotion. The DPPPWB complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 Aug 06, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-01236

    Original file (BC-2007-01236.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Amendment SO ACD-00565, dated 26 January 2007 pertaining to applicant's placement on the temporary retired file, effective 20 January 2007 reflects he retired in the projected higher grade of SSgt. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, after reviewing the evidence of record we agree with the opinions and recommendations 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...