Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-03380
Original file (BC-2010-03380.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-03380

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted from corporal to master sergeant (MSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He believes he should have been promoted to the rank of MSgt based  on
the duties he was performing as a crew chief at the time of discharge.

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of  documents
extracted from his military personnel records.

Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military records were destroyed in 1973 by fire at the
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), St Louis, MO.

The available record reflects the applicant served on active duty from
7 Jul 43 through 17 Feb 46.  His discharge  certificate  reflects  the
highest grade the applicant held was corporal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE  recommends  the  applicant’s  request  be   time   barred.
However, if the Board chooses to consider  the  case,  they  recommend
denial based on the merits.  AFPC/DPSOE states that due to the limited
records and the passage of time, it is not possible  to  determine  if
promotion to a higher grade was appropriate.  The applicant’s 64  year
delay regarding this matter has greatly  complicated  the  ability  to
determine the merits of his request.  Although the applicant may  have
deserved a promotion there is no official documentation to support his
request for  promotion.   Without  official  documentation  supporting
promotion to the higher grade, DPSOE must assume he was discharged  in
the appropriate grade.  DPSOE notes his chain of command at that  time
was in a better position to evaluate his potential and eligibility for
promotion.  DPSOE further notes that after two and one half  years  of
active service, his duty history and eligibility for  promotion  would
have been reviewed at the time of his discharge.

The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is Exhibit at C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant  on  29
Oct 10 for review and comment within 30 days.  As of  this  date,  no
response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

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 an  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission, to include his rebuttal response,  in
judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and
the recommendation of the Air Force office of  primary  responsibility
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the  applicant
has failed to sustain his burden of proof of the existence of an error
or injustice.  Unfortunately, the applicant’s military records are not
available for review; and the documentation provided by the  applicant
fails to substantiate that he has been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  Although, the  applicant  believes  he  should  have  been
promoted to master sergeant, no official documentation  was  submitted
or  located  to  support  his  request.   Therefore,  based  upon  the
presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental  affairs  and
without evidence to the contrary, we must assume  that  the  applicant
was discharged in the correct grade. While we  are  not  unmindful  or
unappreciative of the  applicant’s  service  to  his  Nation,  in  the
absence of the 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2010-03380 in Executive Session on 8 Feb 11, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      , Panel Chair
      , Member
      , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 10, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 1 Oct 10.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 10.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Nov 10.






                 Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02522

    Original file (BC-2009-02522.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C & D. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDR recommends denial. DPSIDR notes the VMPF data printout provided by the applicant indicates an MSM was approved on 2 Jul 01 by Special Order (SO) GC-283; however, the official SO 283...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00901

    Original file (BC-2009-00901.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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. 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01397

    Original file (BC-2008-01397.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-01397 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was discharged in the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt), rather than senior airman (SrA); and that he was entitled to the Purple Heart, Bronze Star Medal with Valor (BSM w/V), Air Force...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00814

    Original file (BC-2010-00814.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00814 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. Unless the applicant can provide a copy of a promotion order or a financial statement showing his uncle’s rank as sergeant, DPSOE must assume the rank reflected on his separation documents are accurate. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-01327

    Original file (BC-2010-01327.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of SMSgt during the 96, 97, 98, 99, 00 and 01, E-8 promotion cycles. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of his request to change his DOR to SMSgt. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of his request for supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of CMSgt, to remove his EPR ending 12 October 1990, and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04871

    Original file (BC 2012 04871.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He disagrees with the findings of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility. The letter from his Flight Surgeon and 844th Communications Squadron Executive Director states that he was diagnosed with a medical condition that precluded him from achieving a passing fitness score and that he should be exempt from the cardio component...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02874

    Original file (BC-2011-02874.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/DPSOE states they are unable to provide test results/score notice for cycle 02E7 as the applicant was never considered for promotion because he did not take the required Specialty Knowledge Test...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04035 (2)

    Original file (BC 2013 04035 (2).txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a letter dated 22 Oct 13, the demotion authority reinstated his grade to SSgt with his original Date of Rank (DOR) of 9 Jan 13. As such, if the applicant wants to make a request to remove the referral EPRs, he must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations, such as the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-02730

    Original file (BC-2009-02730.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial. The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the additional Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Jun 10, for review and comment...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03312

    Original file (BC 2013 03312.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) be corrected to 31 Jul 2001 (Administratively Corrected). In a letter dated 10 Jan 2014, AFPC/DPSOE advised the applicant his DOR to the grades of SrA, SSgt, TSgt and MSgt were administratively corrected and that he would receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of SMSgt during the May 2014 Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) Supplemental Promotion Board. After a thorough review of the...