RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-03110

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO  

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that at the time of his discharge he held the rank of Staff Sergeant (SSgt) rather than Sergeant (Sgt).  

His records be corrected to reflect the Senior Missileman Badge.  

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was promoted to SSgt several days prior to his discharge. 

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, does not reflect his award of the Senior Missleman Badge.  

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 4 November 1966. 

On 7 May 1968, Special Order G-30, indicates the applicant was awarded the Missileman Badge.  

On 7 May 1970, Special Order G-18, indicates the applicant was awarded the Senior Missileman Badge.  

On 3 November 1970, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and was credited with 4 years of active service.   

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandums prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibit C and D.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  A review of the applicant’s record reflects that he tested for promotion to SSgt (E-5) on 8 and 9 January 1970; however, there is no official documentation (i.e., a promotion order) to indicate that he was selected for promotion.  Promotion history files are only maintained for a period of 10 years as outlined in the Air Force Records Information Management System (AFRIMS).  The applicant has provided no official documentation in support of his contention, his selection to SSgt (E-5) could not be verified, and it has been more than 44 years since his discharge.  Ten years is generally considered an adequate period of time to resolve any promotion inquiries or concerns.  

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

AFPC/DP2SSM recommends denial of the applicant’s request for his records to reflect award of the Senior Missileman Badge.  The applicant has not demonstrated satisfactory duty performance for the required total period of time to be awarded the senior badge.  

The applicant completed his On-the-Job Training (OJT) on 23 April 1968 and was awarded the Control Air Force Specialty Code (CAFSC) 31750 (Instrumentation Mechanic) and Primary Air Force Specialty Code (PAFSC) T31750 (Instructor Instrumentation Mechanic).  

The applicant’s Air Force Form 7, Airman Military Record, indicates that he was authorized to wear the Missileman Badge, dated 7 May 1968; but it did not include the order number, headquarters, or date on the AF Form.  

The applicant was issued a special order, dated 7 May 1970, authorizing him to receive and wear the Senior Missileman Badge.  However, in accordance with Air Force Regulation 35-5, to qualify for award of the Senior Missileman Badge, it is required to meet the following eligibility criteria:

a)	Member must be, or must have been assigned to a guided missile unit.  

b)	Awarded the Missileman Badge.  

c)	Possess a guided missile Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) or performed a direct, distinctive role in the command, maintenance, or operation of the missile, or its AGE, or must be, or must have been assigned to a staff or comparable level position approved as a guided missile position by major command or HQ USAF DCS or ACS concerned.  

d)	Primary duty directly associated with command, development, test, maintenance, or operation of guided missiles.

e)	Satisfactorily completed specialized missile training and demonstrate satisfactory performance in duty position for a total of at least three years and obtained recommendation of immediate supervisor.  

In this case, the applicant should not be awarded the Senior Missileman Badge because he did not satisfactorily perform in the duty position for the required total period of at least three years.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DP2SSM evaluation is at Exhibit D.  

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 8 April 2016 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit E).  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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error of injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the requested relief.  

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-2015-03110 in Executive Session on 2 June 2016 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Panel Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-03110 was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 July 2015, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 8 February 2016.
Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DP2SSM, dated 5 April 2016.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 April 2016.  

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board’s review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board’s proceedings in the above entitled matter.