RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2008-03696 

 INDEX CODE: 131.00 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Her father’s rank be corrected to reflect E-4 (Sergeant). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

Her father was recommended for and passed boards for promotion 
from corporal to sergeant, but he was discharged before the 
promotion orders were cut. 

 

The applicant contends that due to a family hardship, and her 
father’s premature discharge from the Air Force, he never 
received his promotion to sergeant. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provided copies of her 
father’s DD Form 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces 
of the United States, a request for a “Wish Upon a Hero,” a 
personal statement, various information and documentation 
surrounding the circumstances of her father’s discharge, and a 
newspaper article pertaining to her father. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 26 Sep 50 
in the grade of E-1 (airman basic). He was separated for reasons 
of hardship in the grade of E-3 (airman second class) on 6 Feb 
53, after serving 2 years, 4 months, and 11 days. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

HQ AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicant’s request be denied based 
on timeliness. However, should the Board choose to decide the 
case, DPSOE recommends the Board deny the request as the member 
was not time in grade eligible for promotion to E-4 prior to his 
separation. 

 



In the applicant’s case, he waited more than 55 years after 
discharge before petitioning the Air Force Board for Correction 
of Military Records (AFBCMR). The applicant’s unreasonable delay 
has also caused prejudice to the Air Force as relevant records 
have been destroyed or are no longer available, memories have 
failed, and witnesses are unavailable. 

 

DPSOE has reviewed the extremely limited records (records were 
destroyed in the 1973 fire at NPRC) on the applicant and they 
found no official documentation regarding a promotion to E-4. 
Promotions during this timeframe were made at the Major Command, 
unless delegated by the Major Command to the Wing, Group, or 
Squadron levels. HQ USAF distributed promotion quotas to the 
Major Commands based on projected vacancies within each Career 
Field Subdivision. Promotion boards selected individuals and the 
quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. 
Some career fields received more promotions than others based on 
vacancies and the needs of the Air Force. To be considered for 
promotion to E-4, an individual must have 24 months time-in-
grade, possess a skill level Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) 
commensurate with the rank, and be recommended by the commander. 
These were the minimum eligibility requirements to be considered 
but in no way ensured or guaranteed a promotion. Since the 
applicant’s father was not promoted to E-3 until 19 May 52, he 
would not have served the required 24 months at this rank by the 
time of his separation on 6 Feb 53. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Her intent in obtaining this promotion for her father was to do 
something nice for her 80 year old father, and because he 
deserved this rank. It is not just a matter of getting a 
“promotion” and not for any sort of “relief,” just that it is for 
deserved recognition of service. 

 

Under the Reason for Request, it is written that she believes her 
father was recommended for, and passed promotion boards. Yes, 
she does believe it—indeed—because she has never known her father 
to tell a lie—he prides himself on his honesty. Her father 
recalls his accurate length of service to be 29 months and 4 
days. She is not asking for any relief, but a title change only, 
to present him with the title he earned prior to his separation. 
Her father was recommended for promotion to E-4 by his commanding 
officer, and he took the boards, and passed them. If at the time 
her father was recommended for a promotion to E-4, and took the 
boards, and passed them, why, then, would all of that official 
procedure have been followed if her father had not spent the 
adequate time in his rank (as the letter alleges)? 

 

The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at 
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 opinion and recommendation 
of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. 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-2008-03696 in Executive Session on 14 January 2009, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

  Panel Chair 

  Member 

  Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
BC-2008-03696 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 08, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Reconstructed Military Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 29 Oct 08. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Nov 08. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Nov 08, w/atchs.