DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-00453
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the
grade of airman first class (E-3).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should have been promoted to airman third class (E-2) along
with his contemporaries. As a result of the delay of his
promotion, he was not promoted to airman second class (E-3). He
had no disciplinary problems or reprimands of any kind during his
military service, however, other personnel in his outfit received
their promotions earlier than he did. He is both humiliated and
embarrassed to have only attained the rank of E-2 at the time of
his discharge when many others achieved the rank of E-3.
In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his
DD Form 256, Honorable Discharge Certificate, and his DD Form 214,
Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant began his military service on 13 May 58 and was
progressively promoted to the grade of airman second class (E-3),
effective and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Feb 61.
On 1 Jun 62, the applicant was honorably discharged at the
expiration of his term of service and he was credited with 4 years
and 19 days of total active service.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. Air Force Regulation (AFR) 39-29,
Promotion of Airmen, dated 31 Mar 54, indicates that all airman
basics (AB) will be promoted to airman third class (E-2) upon
completion of Basic Military Training (BMT) or after four months
of time in grade (TIG). The applicant’s records do not contain a
promotion order to E-2; however, his Airman Performance report
(APR) does indicate a promotion to airman third class (E-2) with a
DOR of 1 Aug 58. Without a promotion order or any documentation
indicating when the applicant completed BMT, it must be assumed
the applicant’s DOR for the grade of E-2 is listed correctly on
his APR. Additionally, the DOR falls within the four month time
period indicated in the AFR and, absent any documentation from the
applicant, it must be assumed that he was timely promoted to E-2.
Furthermore, while the applicant indicates that he finds it
humiliating to have achieved only the rank of E-2, his DD Form 214
clearly reflects he was discharged as an E-3. Therefore, there is
no error regarding his rank at the time of his discharge since his
contentions regarding earlier promotion to the ranks of E-2 and
E-3 are unsupported
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE 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 4 May 12 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As
of this date, no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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:
2
Chair
Member
Member
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-2012-00453 in Executive Session on 19 Jul 12, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 Mar 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 May 12.
Chair
3
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 | CY2012 | BC-2012-01359
DPSOE states the application has not been filed within the three- year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). Due to the passage of time and lack of promotion history files, DPSOE is unable to determine why the applicant was promoted to his various ranks on the dates reflected in his record. However, the total time-in-grade required to be considered for promotion from E-1 to E-4 was 30 months, and the applicant was promoted at...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC PCT 2 7 1998 Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-03670 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: epartment of the Air Force relating to corrected to show that he was promoted to ith a date of rank of 17 October 1997. v Air Force Review...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00211
His date of discharge be corrected to reflect 17 December 1956. The applicant has not submitted a timely application and it has been almost 58 years since the applicant separated from the service. The applicant did not provide any evidence or supporting documentation contrary to the effective date of separation currently listed on both his DD Form 214 and NA Form 13038.
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 02434
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-02434 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he was serving in the grade of airman first class (E-3) at the time of his discharge from the Regular Air Force. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04057
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibilities (OPRs) which are included at Exhibits C, D, E and F. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: USAF/A3O-AIF recommends denial of the applicants request for the award of the Aeronautical Badge because she did not have at least 36 months of operational flying to be permanently awarded the Aircrew Member Badge. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 36-3203,...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 01855
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. Paperwork aside, the applicant was promoted to senior airman, effective 30 May 11. The punishment of a reduction in grade in...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-03355
Based on the applicant’s DOR as a SrA of 13 June 1992, the first time he was considered for promotion to the grade of SSgt was cycle 94A5. The AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In an undated letter, the applicant reiterated his contention that based on Air Force Pamphlet 36-2241, paragraph 15.41.2.SrA, which states that A1Cs are promoted to SrA with either 36 months TIS and 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04665
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-04665 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be retroactively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt, E-5) effective Jul 13. AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs, paragraph 1.11, states airmen selected for promotion to the grade of SSgt must complete in-residence...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01113
The complete DPSIPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of supplemental consideration for promotion to the grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) indicating the added points are not sufficient enough as to render him a select for any previous cycle. Based on the applicants 26 Feb 95 DOR to the grade of SrA, the first time he was considered for promotion to SSgt was cycle 96A5. THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force...