RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04115
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His rank of A/1C (airman first class) be changed to reflect
sergeant on his NGB Form 22, Report of Separation/Discharge
and Record of Service.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He performed duties as a sergeant and no one ever told him it
would be temporary. He served with honor and feels this is
unjust.
The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The available records reflect the applicant served in the New
Jersey Air National Guard from 14 Dec 50 to 13 Dec 53.
The applicant was promoted to private on 4 May 51, corporal on
15 Dec 51. On 8 May 52, he received a temporary promotion to
A/2C with an effective date of 1 May 52, and on 1 Jun 52, he was
promoted to the grade of A/1C.
The applicants DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed
Forces of the United States, issued in conjunction with his
1 Oct 52 separation reflects the rank of A/1C(T) and his NGB
Form 22, Report of Separation and Record of Service, issued with
his 13 Dec 53 separation reflect the rank of A/1C.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
NGB/A1POE recommends denial. A1POE states the applicant has not
provided any documentation to show that an error or injustice
occurred. Further, at the time of the applicants discharge,
there was no enlisted grade of sergeant.
In April 1952, the titles of the Air Force ranks changed to
restrict the non-commissioned officer status to a select few and
the rank of sergeant (E-4) went away. The new title for an E-4
was airman first class and the next grade was staff sergeant
(E-5).
The complete A1POE 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 7 Jan 11 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit D). 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 opinion and recommendation
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its
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-2010-04115 in Executive Session on 12 April 2011, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 26 Oct 10.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, NGB/A1POE, dated 8 Dec 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 11.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC 2012 05761
While he was not a member of the NVANG for a year prior to the suspense for being submitted for promotion, he had been on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) continuously since he was commissioned in 2008 and therefore should have been recommended for promotion during the Calendar Year 2011B (CY11B) Second Half Captain Promotion Selection Board. However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, we are not...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05761
While he was not a member of the NVANG for a year prior to the suspense for being submitted for promotion, he had been on the Reserve Active Status List (RASL) continuously since he was commissioned in 2008 and therefore should have been recommended for promotion during the Calendar Year 2011B (CY11B) Second Half Captain Promotion Selection Board. However, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicants complete submission, to include his rebuttal response, we are not...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00209
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00209 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His reentry (RE) code be changed to one that will allow him to re-enter the military. The Medical Consultant lauds the applicants desire to once again serve, and the support he has received from his parents, an employer, his youth pastor, and a...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01596
On 10 Dec 10, NGB/A1PS informed the applicant that he had not exhausted the administrative remedies regarding his application for correction of his military records. 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 offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2009-03038
In support of her request, the applicant provides a copy of her original MSD extension request and correspondence related to the matter under review. On 15 Dec 08, NGB/A1POE recommended approval; however, the ANG Chief of Chaplains (NGB/HC) subsequently recommended denial, indicating the applicant’s retention was not in the best interests of the Air Force. However, inasmuch as the Board lacks the authority to reinstate applicants into the ANG, we believe the proper and fitting relief in...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01480
Based on available documentation in the file, they found the discharge consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1 Jul 04 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | bc-2007-01883
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01883 INDEX CODE: 107.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 18 DEC 2008 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, dated 30 Nov 79, be corrected to reflect award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) First Oak Leaf...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02764
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02764 INDEX CODE: 110.02 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His undesirable discharge be upgraded. He was credited with 3 years, 7 months, and 4 days active service (excludes 197 days of lost time due to three periods of confinement). They also noted applicant did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04714
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of her enlistment, she had enough college credits to enlist in the grade of A1C. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PO recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00302
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 31 Jan 51 and was assigned to the 6351st Medical Squadron at Naha Air Base. Apparently, however, he was reassigned again and, on 12 May 53, his squadron requested his transfer to the rehabilitation squadron because of his unresponsiveness to repeated counseling, correction and discipline. The applicant was discharged in the grade of airman basic under the provisions of AFR 39-17 (Unfitness) on 16 Jul 54 with an undesirable characterization...