RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
	
IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-04133

	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT’S REQUEST.  That his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, blocks 5a, Grade, Rate or Rank, 5b, Pay Grade, be corrected to reflect the grade of  staff sergeant (SSgt), E5 vs sergeant (Sgt), E4 and block 6, Date of Rank to 1 Jan 69 vs 1 Nov 67. 

APPLICANT’S CONTENTION.  He was discharged based on an Early Separation program and had a line number for the grade of SSgt.  He was told by the personnel specialist that since he would not fulfill his commitment, he could not be promoted.  He was not advised if he had any recourse.     His line number should have been moved up to 1 Jan 69 prior to his discharge as some other airmen in his squadron in the same situation had their promotion dates moved up. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS.  The applicant was discharged from the Regular Air Force on 31 Jan 69 in the grade of sergeant and credited with 3 years, 4 months and 10 days of total active service.  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C and F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  AFPC/DP2SPP recommends denying the application as untimely and indicated the applicant was discharged from active duty prior to his line number increment, 1 Feb 69.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 1 Mar 17 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 22 Mar 17.  In his response, the applicant contends that his line number was incremented by dividing the total number of selectees by 12 months rather than determined by vacancy and that based on the mandatory early separation program, the line numbers of selectees separated prior to his discharge date would have moved his line number up to an earlier date.  The applicant also requests the Board waive timeliness because he was not given an appeal rights or due process by the Separation Section for their failure to process his promotion orders to the grade of  SSgt. The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  AFPC/DP2SPP remains with their original recommendation to deny the application as untimely stating 48 years as an unreasonable delay and indicate there is nothing in Air Force policy at the time that would have allowed for accelerated line numbers due to an Early Separation program.  Additionally, the number of selectees promoted each month is determined by vacancies and the need for a particular rank and not by dividing the total number of selectees by 12 months.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION.  The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 2 Aug 17 for comment (Exhibit G), and the applicant replied on 18 Aug 17.  In his response, the applicant reiterates his request for the Board to waive timeliness and argues that he was not afforded due process or appeal rights denying his right to be promoted to SSgt prior to his discharge.  

The applicant also points out that his line number should have lowered based on the 438 APOSQ, FY69 2 Promotion Cycle (1 Dec 68 thru 1 May 69) memorandum, dated 15 Nov 68, where four airmen were listed who had already been discharged and one airman who moved to another base.  
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES:

1.  The application was timely filed.

2. The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.  

3. After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with AFPC/DP2SPP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions. Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:  The APPLICANT be informed that the evidence did not demonstrate material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION: The following quorum of the Board, as defined in paragraph 1.5 of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2016-04133 in Executive Session on 28 Mar 18:

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A: Applicant’s application, DD Form 149, dated 10 Oct 16, w/atchs.
Exhibit B: Documentary evidence, including excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 23 Feb 17.
Exhibit D: Notification of Advisory, AFBCMR to applicant, dated 1 Mar 17.
Exhibit E: Applicant’s response, dated 22 Mar 17.
Exhibit F: Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 5 Jun 17.
Exhibit G: Notification of Advisory, AFBCMR to applicant, dated 2 Aug 17.
Exhibit H: Applicant’s response, dated 18 Aug 17.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.