RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2021-02828

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  NONE
	(MEMBER)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX                                             HEARING REQUESTED:  YES
         (APPLICANT) 	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

His official military service record be corrected to reflect a posthumous promotion.

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

Her deceased father faced racial bias, harassment (offensive), and discrimination while serving and was never told why he was not promoted, while others were promoted.  He served honorably during his continuous career; however, was not promoted for well over 15 years.  Most African-American men during World War II and all other times received the same treatment.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is the daughter of a deceased retired Air Force staff sergeant (E-5). 

On 1 May 52, according to AF Form 7, Airman Military Record, the deceased service member was promoted to the temporary grade of staff sergeant (E-5), under Special Order XX, dated 9 May 52, and to the permanent grade of staff sergeant (E-5), under Special Order XX, dated 27 Feb 56.

On 28 Feb 67, the deceased service member was furnished an honorable discharge, in the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), with a date of rank of 1 May 52, Type of Transfer or Discharge, Retirement, and credited with 20 years, 2 months, 15 days, active service.

On 28 Feb 67, according to Special Order Number XXXXX, dated 3 Feb 67, the deceased service member was relieved from active duty and retired effective 1 Mar 67.

On 25 May 97, according to AF Form 1312, Report of Retired Casualty, the service member died.

For more information, see the excerpt of the deceased service member’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

In accordance with Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 1332.41, Boards for Correction of Military Records (BCMRs) and Discharge Review Boards (DRBs):

3.  Policy.  It is DoD policy that:
	3.1. Procedures established by the Secretaries of the Military Departments for the correction of military records and for the review of discharges and dismissals must conform to the requirements of reference (c) and this Directive. 
3.2. Military Department policy governing the operation and conduct of boards for the correction of military records and boards for review of discharges or dismissals shall state the scope of each board's authority and, at a minimum, require that: 
3.2.1. The boards consider applications individually and fashion relief appropriate to the facts and circumstances of each case. 
3.2.2. Applications be submitted by the individual seeking relief or by an appropriate representative as defined in reference (c), as applicable. 
3.2.3. Before granting relief, sufficient evidence justifying the relief must be on the record or provided by the applicant. Relief shall be denied if there is insufficient material evidence in the record or provided by the applicant to warrant relief.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

AFPC/DP2SPP recommends denying the application.  Based on the documentation provided by the applicant and analysis of the facts, there is no evidence of an error or injustice for stagnant promotion.  In accordance with DoDD 1332.41, paragraph 3.2.3., “Before granting relief, sufficient evidence justifying the relief must be on the record or provided by the applicant.  Relief shall be denied if there is insufficient material evidence in the record or provided by the applicant to warrant relief.”  The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her claim that her deceased father should have been promoted in the latter years of his career.

During the deceased service member’s period of service, Air Force Regulation (AFR) 36-29, Promotion of Airmen, changed several times.  On 31 Mar 54, two years after the deceased service was promoted to E-5, new guidance was released outlining promotion requirements for all ranks.  Specifically, promotion to technical sergeant (E-6) required a time in grade (as an E-5) of 14 months, making the deceased member eligible on 1 Jul 53.  On 1 Mar 53, again new guidance was published, and while time in grade requirements did not change, promotion authority did change.  Commanders of groups and separate units in comparable organization or size alone were delegated promotion authority to promote all airmen grades within their commands through a list of eligible and allotted quotas for each air command based on the number eligible Airmen.

As of 1952, Airmen could receive one of the following promotion recommendations:  Do Not Recommend; Along with Other Airmen; and Ahead of Other Airmen.  Ratees could also receive one of the following overall evaluation comments:
-	One of the very few outstanding Airmen I know / Outstanding
-	An exceptional Airman of great value to the service / Excellent
-	A very good Airman/Very Good
-	A good Airman/Good
-	An acceptable Airman/Fair
-	An unsatisfactory Airman

A review of the deceased service member’s evaluations, after his promotion to E-5 on 1 May 52 through his discharge on 28 Feb 67, reflects ratings ranging from “A good Airman/Good” to “One of the very few outstanding Airmen I know/Outstanding” as well as comments for “Improvement Areas.”  Promotion recommendations range from “Do Not Recommend” through “Ahead of other Airmen.”

The applicant referenced positive evaluation comments which she believes indicated her deceased father should have been promoted, while comments referencing areas for improvement are deemed humiliating. There are numerous factors influencing promotion consideration, including performance compared to peers, demonstrated leadership qualities, disciplinary actions, fitness, adherence to dress and appearance standards, available promotion allocations/rates, and quality of candidates competing for limited allocations at a given installation (Enlisted Promotion process was de-centralized until 1973).  Further, the applicant did not introduce any evidence, nor was there any documentation in her deceased father’s record (e.g., official complaint, signed statement by the member, signed eyewitness statements, etc.), to substantiate the claim that racial bias, harassment, and/or discrimination resulted in her deceased fathers lack of promotion for 15 years.

The complete advisory opinion is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 11 Aug 22 for comment (Exhibit D) but has received no response.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.

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

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of AFPC/DP2SPP and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  There is no evidence of harassment or that the deceased service members lack of promotion was the result of racial bias and/or discrimination.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery within the three-year limit, the Board does not find the assertion supported by a preponderance of the evidence.  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2021-02828 in Executive Session on 26 Oct 22:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 24 Jun 21.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 20 Jul 22.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 11 Aug 22.

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