RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-00253

			COUNSEL:  NONE 

			HEARING DESIRED: NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His record be corrected to reflect his grade as Technical 
Sergeant (TSgt) E-6. 

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was promoted to TSgt in January 1971 upon his departure from 
his Pacific Air Force (PACAF) assignment. Upon his retirement, 
his DD Form 214, Armed Force of the United States Report of 
Transfer or Discharge, indicated his grade was still Staff 
Sergeant (SSgt) E-5.  Despite all his actions, he could not get 
the error corrected.  He had eight months in grade when he 
retired.  He proudly served his country for over 20 years.  He 
made all efforts, to his knowledge, to correct the error.  
Thanks to additional support in 2012, he discovered the option 
of submitting an application for correction to the AFBCMR.  He 
has factual data to justify the correction.  

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a letter of recommendation from his son-in-law and 
copies of documents extracted from his military personnel 
record.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former member of the Regular Air Force who 
enlisted on 2 July 1951 and was relieved from active duty on 
31 August 1971 and retired effective 1 September 1971.  He was 
credited with 20 years, 1 month and 29 days of active duty 
service.

________________________________________________________________



AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicant's request be time barred.  
Should the Board choose to decide the case, they recommend the 
applicant's request be denied based on lack of official 
documentation.  They also recommend the DD Form 215, Correction 
of DD Form 214, Certificate of Discharge or Release from Active 
Duty, dated 27 February 2013, be destroyed.  A review of the 
applicant’s record reveals no orders promoting him to the grade 
of TSgt.  The Special Order P-30 provided by the applicant in 
support of his contention is not a promotion order or official 
document of rank/grade.  Although the order reflects the 
applicant’s rank as TSgt, it appears to be a typographical 
error.  No other document in his entire record with a date of 
1 January 1971, until the date of retirement reflects the rank 
of TSgt.  His record does contain an AF Form 1566, Test 
Verification, indicating the applicant's refusal to test for the 
rank of TSgt dated 13 January 1971.  He would not have received 
this document if he had already been selected for promotion to 
TSgt.  

The complete AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

1.  AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial.  DPSOR states that the 
applicant's record indicates he was promoted to SSgt on 
1 October 1965.  There are no promotion orders in his record to 
validate a promotion to the rank of TSgt.  The applicant's 
retirement order, Special Order AC-07219, dated 
24 February 1971, shows his rank as SSgt, with the highest rank 
held on active duty as SSgt.  Additionally, the DD Form 214, 
dated 31 August 1971, identified his rank as SSgt.  The 
applicant authenticated the accuracy of the information on the 
form by signing it.  Finally, the applicant also completed a DD 
Form 1351-2, Travel Voucher or Subvoucher, dated 18 August 1971, 
on which he indicated his rank was SSgt.  

2.  During their review of his record, they discovered that 
earlier this year, a technician from the Total Force Service 
Center erroneously prepared a DD Form 215 to change his rank 
from SSgt to TSgt.  The basis for this change was Special Order 
P-30, dated 22 January 1971, which indicated a change to the 
applicant's Date Eligible for Return from Overseas (DEROS).  A 
DEROS change notification is not a valid source document for 
promotion; therefore, they notified AFPC/DPSOR to void this 
erroneous DD Form 215.  

The complete AFPC/DPSOR evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________




APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

1.  In further support of his request, the applicant responds 
that his promotions in the service were routinely verbal with 
little or no ceremony.  Most information was passed by word of 
mouth.  He confesses he did not understand the critical 
paperwork involved.  He was informed after six years in grade 
that he was due a promotion to Technical Sergeant (TSgt). He was 
told by his Chief that the orders were being cut, he had been 
promoted, and the orders would follow him to his next assignment 
in Texas.  He planned to retire at that duty station.  He was 
pleased to see his DEROS orders reflected his new rank.  

2.  When he arrived at Bergstrom Air Force Base (AFB), he 
processed in with his travel orders and explained that he had 
been promoted to TSgt.  Nothing more was said.  His travel pay 
was processed and he did not know his rank would make much 
difference in his travel pay so he did not question the rank on 
that document.  Up to the day he began out-processing, he argued 
about the promotion.  When he was shown his DD Form 214 
reflecting he was only a SSgt, he complained and argued for 
several days.  It came to the point of signing the DD Form 214 
or continue in the Air Force.  He had aligned a job as a 
mechanic with the State of New York and could argue no longer 
with the Air Force administration.  Totally disgusted, he signed 
the DD Form 214.  He has been arguing this issue since 1971 but 
never knew how to “fight the system.”  He admits he never saw 
promotion orders, but he had not seen promotion orders for 
previous promotions as most were verbal reports.  He was 
promoted and the orders stayed in his records.  

3.  His personnel file at home was simply nonexistent. He 
understands that is his error.  The only papers he has showing 
his promotion is the DEROS order.  He was told his records were 
destroyed in a fire and actual file copies are no longer 
available.  He has pursued every avenue in an attempt to find a 
copy of his promotion orders.  It is interesting that he was 
told the file was destroyed yet, the Air Force evaluations’ 
research shows the file exists and does not contain promotion 
orders.  He knows his ignorance of administrative procedures has 
caused this issue and confesses that this is why it has taken 
over 40 years to find recourse.  He is now disabled and has 
suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) for many 
years before being diagnosed as 100% disabled.  He asks for 
consideration as an Airmen who served loyally.  With six years 
in grade, he was promoted but he does not have the last piece of 
paper to prove it.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.  

________________________________________________________________


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, including his rebuttal, 
in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the 
opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our 
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice.  In addition, while we note the applicant’s 
assertion he was told he had been promoted and the promotion 
orders would follow him to his next assignment, the evidence 
available to us is insufficient to conclude that he was 
officially promoted to next higher grade.  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 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 1 April 2014, under the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603:

			, Panel Chair
			, Member
			, Member



The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-00253 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jul 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, Applicant’s Master Personnel Record.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 4 Sep 2013.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 Oct 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Jan 2014.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 24 Jan 2014.