RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2013-02448

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty, be changed to reflect his rank as “SGT” (sergeant), 
instead of “SRA” (senior airman).

2.  His “Separation Date This Period” be changed to reflect 
23 Apr 93, instead of 23 Apr 91.

3.  His narrative reason for separation be changed to reflect 
“Reduction in Force – Involuntary,” instead of “Expiration Term 
Of Service.”

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Clerical errors are the reason for his DD Form 214 being 
incorrect. 

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he enlisted 
in the Regular Air Force on 16 Sep 83.

On 26 Oct 90, the applicant’s supervisor initiated an AF Form 
418, Selective Reenlistment/Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Status 
Consideration, recommending the applicant’s NCO status be 
reinstated and, on the same day, the applicant’s commander 
approved the recommendation.  The applicant was reappointed to 
the rank of SGT (E-4).

On 6 Feb 91, the applicant’s supervisor initiated an AF Form 
418, recommending that his NCO status be vacated and he be 
denied reenlistment.  The reasons for the action included 
several occurrences of reporting late for duty as well as 
several violations of AFR 35-10, Dress and Personal Appearance 
of Air Force Personnel.

On 8 Feb 91, the applicant’s commander approved the vacation of 
the applicant’s NCO status and denied him reenlistment beyond 
his present term of enlistment.

On 23 Apr 91, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge 
and a narrative reason for separation of “Expiration Term Of 
Service.”  He was credited with seven years, seven months, and 
eight days of total active service.

On 24 Jul 13, AFPC/DPSIPV informed the applicant that they were 
unable to change his service dates on his DD Form 214.  The 
applicant provided a copy of his Identification Card with an 
expiration date of 23 Apr 93; however, because the applicant was 
not on active duty from 24 Apr 91 until the expiration date on 
the card, that period of time cannot be reflected on his DD Form 
214.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of 
primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.    

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOR recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
change his narrative reason for separation indicating there is 
no evidence of an error or an injustice.  Based on the 
documentation on file in the master personnel records, the 
discharge, to include his narrative reason for separation, was 
appropriately administered and within the discretion of the 
discharge authority.    Before recommending discharge, several 
attempts were made to rehabilitate the applicant.  His failure 
to report for duty at the prescribed time, lack of respect for 
authority, and total disregard for policies and procedures was 
unacceptable by Air Force standards; therefore, discharge was 
appropriate.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOR evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request to change 
his rank on his DD Form 214 indicating there is no evidence of 
an error or injustice.  The applicant’s commander was acting 
within his authority when he vacated the applicant’s NCO status.  
The application is untimely under the statute of limitations as 
well as consisting of an inexcusable delay and prejudice to the 
Air Force.  The applicant waited more than 22 years after his 
discharge to petition the AFBCMR and provides no reason for the 
delay.  On 1 Jun 76, the pay grade of E-4 was redesignated as 
both a senior airman and a sergeant.  In order to become a 
sergeant, senior airmen must first serve on active duty in that 
rank for one year, attend NCO Preparatory Course, and be 
recommended by their commander.  The rank of sergeant was an 
appointment, not a promotion and did not change the pay grade 
(E-4) or rate of pay.  A review of the applicant’s record 
indicates his NCO status had been vacated once before based on 
the AF Form 418, dated 26 Oct 90, recommending his NCO status be 
reinstated.  Subsequently, it was vacated again for failure to 
comply with AF standards and reporting late for duty on several 
occasions.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 18 Oct 13 for review and comment within 30 days.  
As of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E).

________________________________________________________________

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, we agree with the opinions and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary 
responsibility (OPR) and adopt their 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:

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-2013-02448 in Executive Session on 27 Feb 14, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	                      , Panel Chair
	                    , Member
	                    , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 15 May 13, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOR, dated 17 Jul 13.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 30 Aug 13.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Oct 13.




                                   
                                   Panel Chair
                                    
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – PRIVACY ACT OF 1974
3