RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02507
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank be changed from technical sergeant (E-6) to master sergeant (E-7).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at Exhibit A.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement from his daughter and copies of his discharge documents.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was honorably discharged from the Army Air Corps on 1 Apr 47 under the provisions of AR 615-360 (Expiration of Term of Service).  He was serving in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) at the time of discharge.  The applicant’s Enlisted Record and Report of Separation reveals E-6 as the highest grade held.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be time barred; however, should the Board choose to decide the case, they recommend it be denied on its merits.  With respect to the applicant’s contention that his recruitment officer promised him a promotion to master sergeant (E‑7) for reenlisting, DPPPWB stated that there is no documentation concerning a promotion to the grade of E-7.  Based on the extremely limited records and the passage of time, it is not possible for DPPPWB, at this point, to determine if promotion to a higher grade was appropriate.  DPPPWB believes that, after serving over 4 years of active duty, his promotion history and eligibility for promotion would have been reviewed at the time of separation.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant and his daughter reviewed the advisory opinion.  The applicant’s daughter stated that her father was promised a promotion to the grade of master sergeant.  She indicated that her father does know what he was promised 55 years ago.  She is aware that a document verifying this promise would clear up the matter, but her father took the promise of an officer of the U.S. Army as the promise of the government that would be upheld just as he would uphold a verbal promise to another person.  A complete copy of this response, with attachments, is at 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.  We recognize his service to the Nation.  However, no documentary evidence has been presented to indicate that a recommendation for promotion was officially submitted.  In the absence of documentary evidence substantiating that the applicant was recommended for promotion to the grade of E-7 and that such a recommendation was approved, we do not find the evidence provided establishes that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice.  In view of the above, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as our findings in the case. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for promotion to E-7 is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

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 Docket Number 02‑02507 in Executive Session on 10 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Jul 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 27 Aug 02.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Sep 02.