RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00999
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect:
1. Award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (administratively
corrected).
2. Award of the Air Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster
(administratively corrected).
3. He receive back pay for the adjustment of his date of rank
(DOR) from 1 Sep 58 to 1 May 57 as an airman second class
(A2C/E-3) and back pay to subsequent ranks due to the adjustment
of his DOR.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was denied 16 months of E-2 pay, missed out on promotion to
airman first class (E-4), and subsequent timely promotions which
caused financial difficulties.
Had he been promoted on time, his family could have traveled
with him at government expense.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of
Special Orders and his discharge certificate.
The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The available record reflects the applicant entered the Regular
Air Force on 12 Sep 56 in the grade of basic airman (E-1).
On 6 Dec 56, the applicant was promoted to the grade of airman
third class (A3/C). On 1 Sep 58 (which was later changed to
1 May 57 per Special Order B-67), he was promoted to the grade
of A2C and on 1 Oct 61, he was promoted to the grade of airman
first class. On 1 May 67, he was promoted to the grade of staff
sergeant.
On 6 Aug 69, he was honorably discharged in the grade of staff
sergeant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial and states the application
should be time barred.
DPSOE states that during the applicants timeframe, promotions
were made at the Major Command, unless delegated by the Major
Command to the Wing, Group, or Squadron levels. HQ USAF
distributed promotion quotas to the Major Commands based on
projected vacancies within each Career Field Subdivision.
Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received
determined the number that could be promoted. Some career
fields received more promotions than others based on vacancies
and the needs of the Air Force. Basic eligibility requirements
such as time in grade, skill level, and recommendations by the
commander were necessary for consideration, but in no way
guaranteed promotion.
Further, DPSOE states that after a thorough review of the
regulations in effect at the time, they were unable to locate
provisions to allow for supplemental consideration based on
grade data changes. However, they believe that supervisors and
commanding officers at the time were in the better position to
evaluate the applicants potential and eligibility for
promotion.
The complete HQ AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
DFAS-IN recommends denial. DFAS-IN states the application was
not filed in a timely manner and they are unable to locate
documents to substantiate a claim of nonpayment of entitlements
based on the adjustment of the applicants effective date of
promotion. However, should the applicant provide leave and
earnings statements from the timeframe, DFAS-IN would revisit
the possibility of back pay and allowances for the adjusted date
of promotion.
The complete DFAS-IN evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 28 Jan 11 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit E). As of this date, this office has not received a
response.
_________________________________________________________________
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 opinions and
recommendations of the Air Force office of primary
responsibility and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no 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-2010-00999 in Executive Session on 17 March 2011, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2010-00999:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 26 Jul 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, DFAS-IN, undated.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jan 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00615
________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicants request be denied. Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. Additionally, we note there is insufficient evidence that substantiates the applicant is entitled to a decoration for actions taken by him during a return flight from Thule, Greenland.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04376
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04376 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank at the time of his discharge be corrected to reflect (E-7) master sergeant versus (E-6) technical sergeant. His DD Form 214 reflects he was honorably retired in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) effective 30 Sep 67, after serving 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03900
Based on AFPC/DPSID review of the applicant's official military personnel record, they were able to determine the below Air Force Medals and/or Ribbons should have been awarded during his service from 17 October 1961 to 2 February 1965 and were not reflected in his records. The applicant's active duty service is from 17 October 1961 to 2 February 1965, which would not meet the eligibility requirements for the Air Force Longevity Service Award. The Air Force Longevity Service Medal is...
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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 02400
During this time, he received an evaluation that would determine his promotion. In the interest of justice, the applicant requests the Board consider the application. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 Jul 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04729
To be eligible for promotion to E-4, an individual must have had 8 months time in grade, possess a 3-skill level Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), and be recommended by the commander. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends the time requirements for consideration of his application should be waived as he believes he has suffered an...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00377
At the time of her husband’s death, his promotion and other military honors were still being processed. A review of the former member's record reveals no documentation recommending or selecting him for promotion to the rank of Warrant Officer/CMSgt (E-9). After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the evidence of record, we find the application untimely.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00212
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00212 INDEX CODE: 131.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 Jul 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant (SMSgt) and/or chief master sergeant (CMSgt). Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05725
The application has not been filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. Based on his DOR to Sgt, he would have been eligible for promotion consideration to the grade of SSgt beginning in 1969.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02450
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02450 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade, as reflected on his DD Form 214, Armed Force of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to reflect Airman First Class (E-4) rather than Airman Second Class (E-3). Based on the evidence of record, his DD Form 214 accurately reflects his grade at the time of discharge from the...