RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00615 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be recognized for his actions while on temporary duty (TDY) 
orders to Thule, Greenland and be promoted to the grade of staff 
sergeant (SSgt/E-5). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He never received any recognition for his actions while TDY to 
Thule, Greenland. While on the return flight from Thule, he 
went down to the lower deck to check the engines and as he 
opened the hatch to engines 3 and 4, he discovered that they 
were on fire. Even though it was hard to breathe, he radioed to 
the pilot that the plane was on fire, which resulted in saving 
the lives of his crewmembers and the aircraft. 

 

He should have been promoted to the grade of SSgt. He notes 
that another airman was promoted to the grade of airman first 
class (A1C/E-4), even though he had more time in grade. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
article from the Air Force Magazine. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

Based on the available record, the applicant was relieved from 
active duty, on 3 Apr 58, under the provisions of AFM 35-4, PHYSICAL EVALUATION FOR RETENTION, RETIREMENT, AND SEPARATION, 
for physical disability, with a compensable disability rating of 
30 percent. He was credited with 2 years, 10 months, and 7 days 
of active duty service. 

 

In Jun 67, the applicant appealed to have consideration for a 
higher retired grade; however, his request was denied. 

 


AFPC/DPSIDR notified the applicant that based on the available 
evidence of record and that provided they were not able to 
verify his entitlement to a decoration in recognition of his 
service during a TDY to Thule, Greenland. They attached the 
specific requirements for submission for a decoration in 
accordance with the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense 
Authorization Act (FY96 NDAA), Section 526 and additional 
documentation needed to substantiate his appeal. However, he 
did not respond. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicant’s request be denied. 

 

DPSOE notes that promotions during this timeframe 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. 
To be considered for promotion to the grade of E-5 (SSgt), an 
individual must have 12 months time-in-grade as an E-4 (A1C), 
possess a skill level Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 
commensurate with the rank, and be recommended by the commander. 
These were the minimum eligibility requirements to be 
considered, but, in no way ensured or guaranteed a promotion. 

 

Had the applicant been selected for promotion to SSgt, an order 
would have been accomplished and placed in the personnel record. 
He would have also had to have been promoted to E-4 (A1C) and 
worn that rank for 8 months before he could have been considered 
for promotion to SSgt. A review of the applicant's record 
reveals no promotion orders to either rank. Since promotion 
history files are only maintained for a period of 10 years as 
outlined in the governing regulation, they are unable to verify 
whether the applicant was considered and selected for promotion. 
However, they believe that supervisors and commanding officers 
at the time were in a better position to evaluate the 
applicant's potential and eligibility for promotion. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

_____________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant on 6 May 11 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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, regarding his request for promotion, we agree 
with the opinion and recommendation of AFPC/DPSOE and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice on this issue. 
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. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2011-00615 in Executive Session on 13 September 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Sep 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 4 Apr 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 11. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair