RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2009-00901
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. He be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant.
2. He be awarded the Purple Heart (PH) medal (administratively
corrected).
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not awarded the PH when he was wounded in 1968; therefore,
he did not get promoted on time to the grades of technical sergeant
(E-6), master sergeant (E-7), and senior master sergeant (E-8).
The PH medal would have given him three additional points towards
being promoted. He missed promotion to master sergeant by 2 points
in the 74B7 promotion cycle and by .5 of a point in the 75B7
promotion cycle.
In support of his request, applicant provides a copy of letters of
support, a copy of his promotion test score printouts, and a
personal note.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force and was
progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant, having
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Oct 75.
He retired after serving 22 years, 6 months, and 13 days on active
duty.
On 1 Dec 09, the Purple Heart Review Board reviewed and approved
his request for the PH for a wound he received during a direct
attack by the enemy on 16 Jun 68.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denying the applicant promotion to senior
master sergeant. DPSOE states the applicants request should be
barred by time. Due to the promotion history files not being
available, DPSOE states they are unable to determine if he would
have been selected for promotion earlier. Furthermore, DPSOE
reviewed the governing regulation in affect at the time and found
out the PH was worth only one point. As a result, he would have
been promoted to master sergeant the cycle prior to his actual
selection.
His promotion resume:
GRADE DOR
TSGT 1 Mar 69
MSGT 1 Oct 75
The DPSOE evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant provides documentation that shows he did not wait
30 years before asking to be awarded the PH and promoted. After
receiving the AFPC/DPSOE response, he felt he had no where else to
turn to; however, it has bothered him so long that he continues to
request a correction to his records. The DPSOE response was
negative and they state that being awarded the PH may not have made
a difference to his promotion in the 75B7 promotion cycle. He also
points out that date of birth (DOB) has never been a factor in
promotion consideration. He believes he deserves and is entitled
to being promoted.
The applicants 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 filed within three years after the
alleged error or injustice was discovered, or could have been
discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States
Code (10 USC 1552), and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. The
essential facts which gave rise to the application were known to
the applicant long before this application and, in fact, were
contained in applications rejected on the merits by prior Boards.
Thus, the application is untimely.
3. Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552 permits us, in our discretion, to
excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. We have
carefully reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record,
and we do not find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing
of this application. The applicant asserts that he intentionally
delayed this application until he perceived a climate more
favorable to his request. This is not an acceptable basis for the
Board to exercise its discretion under 10 USC 1552(b). The
applicant has not shown a plausible reason for delay in filing, and
we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or
injustice that require resolution on its merits. We note the Air
Force office of primary responsibility has agreed to
administratively correct the applicants record to reflect award of
the PH. Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in the
interest of justice to excuse the untimely filing of the
application regarding his request for promotion to senior master
sergeant.
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.
_________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF THE BOARD:
The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision
of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number
BC-2009-00901 in Executive Session on 11 Mar 10, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2009-00901
was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Mar 09, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Jan 10, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Feb 10.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Feb 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01137
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial due to the untimely filing of this application. He had a date for promotion to SSgt under the WAPS system in 1970, and if he had reenlisted he would have been promoted. Due to the fact that he was not awarded the PH and AFCM in 2009 and 2010, timing...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03618
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for the period 21 Feb 68 through 21 Dec 68 should have been considered for the contested promotion cycle. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03542
He should receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of MSgt based on the correction to his records. The application has not been filed within the three year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. Regrettably, promotion records are only kept on file for 10 years In Accordance With (IAW) AFR 4-20, Records Disposition Schedule, as such, there are no promotion records available to verify whether the applicant was considered...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-03002
Had he received the DFC when the other crew members did, he would have been selected for promotion to master sergeant (E-7) during the 2008 E7 promotion cycle. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of a photograph of the aircrew in question, special orders reflecting the award of the DFC to the other aircrew members, unsigned documentation related to his submission for the DFC, his weighted airman promotion system score notice for the contested promotion cycle, and...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03962
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03962 COUNSEL: NONE (DECEASED FORMER SERVICE MEMBER) HEARING DESIRED: NO (APPLICANT) APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The service member received an overall rating of 9 on the APR rendered for the period 20 Jul 74 through 26 May 75 with a recommendation to promote. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00080
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00080 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grades of senior master sergeant (E-8) and chief master sergeant (E-9). The applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01113
The complete DPSIPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) indicating the added points are not sufficient enough as to render him a select for any previous cycle. Based on the applicants 26 Feb 95 DOR to the grade of SrA, the first time he was considered for promotion to SSgt was cycle 96A5. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00938
The Air Force should have made the decision of changing this policy to be effective for future recruiting goals in the recruiting career field and provided a definitive date of implementation rather than affecting personnel currently serving in that duty. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that it supports a determination that he be awarded two WAPS points for his Air Force Recruiting ribbon. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02889
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial indicating the applicant has provided no supporting documentation or conclusive evidence that the decoration was in official channels prior to selections for promotion cycle 12E5. In accordance with...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-01357
DPSOE states the first time the decoration in question (worth one point) would have been used in the promotion process was cycle 08E6 to the grade of TSgt. At the time of the DPSOE evaluation, the applicant had been considered and non-selected for promotion to TSgt three times (cycles 08E6, 09E6, and 10E6). 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...