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