RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01915
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her fathers records reflect that he was promoted to the grade
of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her father was an invaluable part of the B-52 combat crew. He
exemplified the Air Force image and was the finest NCO in the
Air Force as stated by his commanding officers.
In support of her request, the applicant provides copies of her
fathers death certificate, her birth certificate, his Airman
Performance Reports (APR), his Air Force Commendation Medal
(AFCM) and Distinguished Flying Cross (CFC) citations.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The deceased members DD Form 214, Report of Separation from
Active Duty, reflects he retired in the grade of Master Sergeant
(MSgt) effective 28 Feb 1974.
He served 20 years, 1 month and 27 days on active duty.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial. DPSOE asserts that the delay
regarding a matter dating back over 39 years has greatly
complicated the ability to determine the merits of the request
and recommend the application be time barred. In accordance
with Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for
Correction of Military Records, the applicants request may be
dismissed under the equitable doctrine of laches, which denies
relief to one who has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed
asserting a claim. In the applicants case, it has been more
than 39 years since her fathers discharge. The unreasonable
delay has also caused prejudice to the Air Force as relevant
records have been destroyed or are no longer available. DPSOE
reviewed her fathers records and was unable to verify if he was
considered or promoted to the grade of Senior Master Sergeant
(SMSgt) since promotion history files are only maintained for a
period of 10 years as outlined in Air Force Manual (AFMAN) 37-
139, Records Disposition Schedule.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Her father should be promoted based on the recommendations of
his commanding officers as reflected in his performance reports.
The reason for the late filing is that she just received his
military records on 1 Apr 2013 and would have made the request
sooner if she had known. She requested assistance from her
Congressman who advised her to submit her application to the
Board because of his exemplary and incredible service to the
United States Air Force and requests the Board reconsider the
promotion he deserved.
The applicants complete response, with attachment, is at
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. After
thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and the applicants
contentions, we are not persuaded the requested relief should be
granted. The applicants fathers personal sacrifice and
unselfish service to his country is noted and our decision in no
way lessens our regard for his service; 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 that 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 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-2013-01915 in Executive Session on 30 Jan 2014, under
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 2013, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Available Military Service Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 31 May 2013.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jun 2013.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Jul 2013, w/atch.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00065
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00065 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her rank of E-3, airman first class be corrected to reflect E-4, sergeant. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be time barred. The application was not filed...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02400
During this time, he received an evaluation that would determine his promotion. In the interest of justice, the applicant requests the Board consider the application. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 Jul 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01967
DPSOE states although they cannot determine whether the applicant was actually considered and selected for promotion to SMSgt, they can verify that he would have become ineligible for promotion due to his declination of assignment to Vietnam. The application has not been filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for 2 Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03962
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03962 COUNSEL: NONE (DECEASED FORMER SERVICE MEMBER) HEARING DESIRED: NO (APPLICANT) APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The service member received an overall rating of 9 on the APR rendered for the period 20 Jul 74 through 26 May 75 with a recommendation to promote. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00080
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00080 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grades of senior master sergeant (E-8) and chief master sergeant (E-9). The applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02988
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is listed at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be time barred. Promotion Boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. With regard to his request for award of the LOM, there was no evidence...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00142
The applicants service records are at Exhibit B. After a thorough review of the available evidence and the applicants complete submission, we find no evidence which would persuade us that the applicants service records should be corrected to show he was promoted to any grade higher than that reflected in his military records. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04376
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04376 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank at the time of his discharge be corrected to reflect (E-7) master sergeant versus (E-6) technical sergeant. His DD Form 214 reflects he was honorably retired in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) effective 30 Sep 67, after serving 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02908
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02908 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His grade, as reflected on his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces, be corrected to reflect SSgt instead of SSgt(T). ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served his...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2009-01196
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 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, and the applicant’s delay regarding a matter now dating back over 62 years has greatly complicated their ability to determine the merits of his position. The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or...