RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03031
INDEX CODE: 131.00
XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 APR 2008
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His record be corrected to reflect the rank of sergeant.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was unfairly denied the sergeant rating that was offered to all
who completed the US Army Air Forces (USAAF) Technical School
Instructor Course. Everyone in the class preceding him who
completed the course were given the sergeant rating as was offered,
but his class that immediately followed, did not receive the
sergeant rating. He was given the instructor badge, and assigned
to teach the technical school, and told while teaching, he would be
“Acting Sergeant.”
In support of his appeal, applicant submitted a personal statement;
a copy of USAAF Technical School diploma, dated 10 Aug 43; DD Form
214, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation – Honorable
Discharge, dated 20 Sep 45, and a letter from his senator. Exhibit
A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant entered military service on 18 Mar 43 and was honorably
discharged on 20 Sep 45. His highest rank held was private first
class (PFC). He was credited with 1 year, 8 months, and 5 days of
active duty service.
On 3 Nov 06, applicant’s DD Form 214, dated 20 Sep 45, Item 41,
added Instructor Training Course, Aug 1943.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB reviewed this application and recommended denial
stating, in part, based on the limited records and passage of time,
it is not possible 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 – PFC.
HQ AFPC/DPPPWB’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by letter, dated
1 Dec 06. In support of his appeal, he provided a copy of the
”Contrails” newsletter.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. Based upon the
limited records and the presumption of regularity in the conduct of
governmental affairs and without evidence to the contrary, we must
assume that the applicant's grade at the time of separation was
proper and in compliance with appropriate directives. Therefore,
based on the available evidence of record, we find no basis upon
which to favorably consider 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 issue 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 AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2006-03031 in Executive Session on 20 December 2006, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member
Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 Sep 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 31 Oct 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Nov 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Dec 06, w/atch.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01409
The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response dated 24 Jun 07, the applicant states supplemental promotion consideration creates two injustices. 1) His records will not be scored by the same promotion board members as the rest of his promotion eligible peers; and 2) under the supplemental promotion process, he will never receive a promotion board score. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-02212
Therefore, DPPPWB assumes the discharge certificate and Enlisted Record and Report of Separation reflect the correct rank. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us that the former member's service records should be corrected to show he was promoted to any grade higher than that reflected in his military records. Novel, Panel Chair Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member Mr. Reginald P. Howard, Member The...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00929
In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal letter, a copy of his DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and a copy of his orders for gunnery school. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03657
On 25 Oct 61, he was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve in the grade of airman third class. Therefore, based on the evidence of record, we find no error in this case and after thoroughly reviewing the documentation that has been submitted in support of applicant's appeal, we do not believe the former service member has been the victim of an error or injustice. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Jan 07.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01716
In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement, copy of statement Reason for Appeal of Referral EPR, AF IMT Form 910 Enlisted Performance Report, a Rebuttal to Referral Report Memorandum, a Letter of Appreciation, AF Form IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet, five Letters of Recommendation and excerpts from her military personnel records. On 3 October 2005, an unsigned copy of the referral EPR dated 30 September 2005 was presented to her. After reviewing the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03259
Title 10 USC, Section 1407(f)(2)(B), states if an enlisted member was at any time reduced in grade as the result of a court-martial sentence, nonjudicial punishment, or an administrative action, unless the member was subsequently promoted to a higher enlisted grade, the computation of retired pay is determined under Title 10 USC, Section 1406, Retired pay base for members who first became members before September 1980: final basic pay. The applicant further contends the demotion was invalid...
The applicant provided a 9 Oct 45 War Department document indicating that he was awarded the PH for wounds received in action on 13 Jun 43 in the European Theater. A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, advised that, since the applicant was a POW for approximately 23 months, he meets the prerequisites for a POW promotion and recommends he be promoted to MSgt effective 24 Sep 45, one day prior to his discharge...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03303
___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: If his decoration had been processed by the suspense date of 2 Oct 05 and had not been lost, he would have met the cut-off score for the promotion to the grade of MSgt for the E7/05 cycle. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s commander provided an explanation of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03737
However, on, or about, 5 Jan 05, the applicant’s commander nonrecommended him for promotion based on his failure to pass the fitness test based on scoring in the marginal category and his involvement in an alcohol related incident at a civic event while attending ALS. That his squadron commander improperly nonrecommended him for promotion on 5 Jan 05 in violation of AFI 36-2502 (Substantiated). The complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02887
Based on the circumstances of his discharge, they found no evidence or injustice; therefore, applicant’s RE code is correct. HQ AFPC/DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9 Nov 06 for review and comment within 30 days. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...