RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04729
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His record be corrected to reflect he was promoted to the grade
of sergeant (E-4) prior to his discharge.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His duty performance consistently exceeded that required of his
grade and rank. The time in grade he held as an airman first
class (E-3) vastly exceeds typical requirements for promotion.
His duty performance was above and beyond that normally expected
of an E-3 and was largely unsupervised and therefore
unrecognized.
In support of his request, the applicant provides an expanded
statement and copies of his DD Forms 214, Armed Forces of the
United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, marriage
certificate, a cancelled check, and a photograph of himself
receiving an award during the period on question.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicants military personnel records, are described
in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary
responsibility (OPR) which is attached at Exhibit C. Therefore,
there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of
Proceedings.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be denied as untimely;
indicating the applicant inexcusably waited over 40 years to
assert his claim. The applicant entered active duty as an E-1
on 24 Nov 64 and was progressively promoted to the grade of
airman first class (E-3), effective and with a date of rank of
11 Sep 65. He served in Vietnam and was eventually honorably
discharged on 22 Nov 68 and was credited with 3 years,
11 months, and 29 days of total active service. Promotions
during the timeframe in question were made at the Major Command,
unless delegated to the Wing, Group, or Squadron level.
Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received
determined the number that could be promoted. Some career
fields received more promotion quotas than others based on
vacancies and the needs of the Air Force. 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. These were the minimum
requirements to be considered but in no way ensured or
guaranteed a promotion. After a thorough review of the
applicants records, no documentation was found that indicates
he was recommended for, or promoted to, the requested grade.
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 injustice due to being under recognized for his
significant contributions during his service. His actions were
unique, way above and beyond the call of duty; and to deny his
request for promotion just adds insult to injury. His unique
accomplishments were worthy of an on the spot field promotion.
This was a slap in the face at the time was a big factor in his
decision not to reenlist.
A complete copy of the applicants response is at Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:
After careful consideration of the applicants request and the
available evidence of record, we find the application untimely.
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 and Air Force Instruction 36-
2603. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the
delay in filing, and we are not persuaded the record raises
issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the
merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of
justice to excuse the applicants failure to file in a timely
manner.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
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-2010-04729 in Executive Session on 25 Aug 11, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Dec 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 27 Jan 11.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Feb 11.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Mar 11.
Panel Chair
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 | 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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-00588
To be considered for promotion to E-5 an individual must have had a minimum of 18 months time-in-grade (TIG), a skill level commensurate with their Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), and be recommended by the commander. To be considered for promotion to TSgt, an individual must have 18 months TIG as a SSgt, possess a 7-skill level, have a current PFE and SKT score, and be recommended by the promotion authority. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
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 | 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 | CY2010 | BC-2010-00999
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. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial and states the application should be time barred. Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted.
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 | 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 | CY2014 | BC 2014 01430
The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider his untimely application because not correcting his record affects his DVA treatment. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. AFPC/DPSIRP recommends denial of the applicants request to change his service number. The complete DPSIRP evaluation is at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 December 2014, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant for review and comment...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04138
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) as he had sufficient time in grade at the time of his separation. 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: AFPC/DPSOE recommends...