RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:				DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-00118
								INDEX CODE:  100.00
								COUNSEL:  NONE

								HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  14 July 2007

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His discharge records be corrected to reflect the rank of airman first class (E-4), and he receive all back pay.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Despite the fact that he earned the rank of airman first class, he never received the rank or pay because Major XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX unfairly gave the promotion to someone else.  The major also committed other unjust acts of prejudice, such as losing his pay records 4 times during promotion periods over the 2 years he was under his command.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 16 November 1960, for a period of 4 years and later extended the enlistment for a period of 9 months.  He received his 3-skill level Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) on 23 December 1960.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of airman second class (E-3), with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 June 1961.  He received his 5-skill level AFSC on 26 March 1962.  On 15 March 1965, he was released from active duty and transferred to the Air Force Reserve in the grade of airman second class.  He had completed 4 years and 9 months of active service.  He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on 15 June 1966, in the grade of airman second class.

Applicant’s Airman Performance Report (APR) profile, follows:

	PERIOD ENDING				OVERALL EVALUATION

	14 Sep 61	4-2
	 2 Aug 62		7-3
	 2 Aug 63		7-3
	 2 Aug 64		8-3

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, that applicant’s request should be time barred; however, should the Board chose to decide the case, it should be denied based on a lack of official documentation.  Applicant’s records contain no documentation showing that he was promoted to the grade of E-4.  The minimum requirements for promotion consideration to E-4 are that the individual have 8 months time-in-grade, possess a 3-skill level AFSC, and be recommended by the commander.  Supervisors and commanding officers at the time were in a better position to evaluate his potential and eligibility for promotion.  Further, after serving 4 years and 9 months of active duty, his promotion history and eligibility for promotion would have been reviewed at the time of separation.

The AFPC/DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 February 2006, for review and comment, within 30 days.  However, 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 error or injustice.  Although the applicant met two of the three minimum eligibility requirements for promotion consideration to E-4, i.e., 8 months time-in-grade and possessed a 3-skill level AFSC, there is no evidence he met the third and final requirement of having been recommended for promotion by the commander.  While the applicant contends his failure to be promoted was an act of prejudice, he has failed to provide documentary evidence to support this contention.  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 Docket Number BC-2006-00118 in Executive Session on 14 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Dec 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 30 Jan 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 10 Feb 06.