THIRD ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-1997- 01068 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar Year 1993B (CY93B) Major Central Selection Board (CSB). be substituted with a new PRF which reflects a “Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendation. 2. His records, to include the corrected “DP” be considered for promotion by an SSB for the CY93B Major CSB. ________________________________________________________________ _ RESUME OF CASE: The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY93B and CY94A CSBs. The Officer Personnel Records Review Board (OPRRB) corrected the applicant’s duty title on the company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 August 1990 through 31 March 1991, and amended the OPR to include an appropriate Professional Military Education (PME) recommendation. However, the OPRRB denied his request for SSB consideration. On 30 April 1995, the applicant was released from active duty. On 28 April 1996, he was commissioned in the Air Force Reserve. He was subsequently promoted to the grade of major, effective 1 October 1998. On 31 March 1997, the applicant submitted an appeal to the Board requesting his non-selections to the grade of major by the CY93B and CY94A CSBs be voided, his PRFs for both promotion boards be revised to reflect overall recommendations of “DP,” and he be promoted to the grade of major by the CY93B CSB with all rights, benefits, pays, and entitlements restored. On 21 June 2000 the Board considered and granted the applicant’s request for SSB consideration for the CY93B and CY94A Major CSBs; however, they denied his request to amend the overall recommendation on his PRFs to reflect “DP,” and his request for direct promotion to major with all rights, benefits, pay and entitlements associated with the restored promotion. On 22 January 2001, the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion by SSBs for the CY93 and CY94 Major CSBs. On 11 April 2005, the applicant’s counsel requested the applicant be considered by another SSB since the SSB that considered him for promotion failed to provide a rationale for not selecting him. On 2 November 2005, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request for another SSB consideration for the CY93 and CY94 Major CSBs. On 10 June 2011, the applicant requested reconsideration and provided letters of support from the Management Level Review (MLR) President for the CY93B CSB, and the original Senior Rater (both retired). With his letter of support, the Senior Rater provided a revised PRF with an overall recommendation of “DP.” On 26 March 2013, the Board considered and rejected the applicant’s request as untimely, indicating that it would not be in the interest of justice to waive the untimeliness For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the three applications, and the rationale of the earlier decisions by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit I, the Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit N, and the Second Addendum to Record or Proceedings at Exhibit T. On 15 September 2013, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration and provided a letter of support from his first line supervisor addressing the timeliness issue. The supervisor indicates the applicant did not have the opportunity to offer PRF corrections before the CY93B CSB met, and that he was unaware of the errors and omissions until, after many years, he was able to communicate with his Senior Rater and able to obtain a correction to his record. In support of his request for reconsideration, the applicant provides a personal statement; a letter from his supervisor; previously submitted letters of support from the Senior Rater and MLR President; a revised PRF for the CY93B CSB with an overall rating of “DP;” an excerpt of a legal opinion, dated 28 September 1988, discussing the timeliness issue; and the Air Force Personnel Center CY93B and CY94A promotion rates to the rank of major with “DP” and “Promote” recommendations on the PRFs. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit U. ________________________________________________________________ _ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. In earlier findings, the Board found the applicant’s requests were untimely filed and; therefore, denied his appeal based on that basis. We concur the applicant’s appeal is untimely; however, Title 10 United States Code (USC) 1552, paragraph b, permits us, in our discretion, to excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. Therefore, we have carefully reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record, and find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of this application in the interest of justice. 2. After thoroughly reviewing the additional documentation submitted in support of his appeal and the evidence of record, we do not believe the applicant has provided sufficient evidence that he has suffered an error or injustice. While the applicant provides a letter of support from his past supervisor indicating the applicant did not have an opportunity to offer PRF corrections before the CY93 Major CSB; and letters of support from the original Senior Rater and MLR President indicting their opinions provide a detailed explanation of what accomplishments were omitted on the PRF during that timeframe, the fact remains that virtually 20 years have elapsed from the time of these errors to current attempts by the applicant and rating chain to correct these errors. All of the principals in this application are currently retired, and their recollections are two decades after the fact. We have considered the applicant’s assertion of due diligence and the statement from his former supervisor that it was impossible for him or the applicant to approach the commander before the CY93B Major CSB concerning his PRF; however, we do not find the arguments presented are sufficient to support their contentions. Any report can be re-written to be more hard hitting and enhance their motive to get another promotion opportunity. However, the time the applicant should have pursued the alleged correction should have been two decades ago, when memories were still fresh. Therefore, in view of the above, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis upon which to recommend favorable consideration of the applicant’s request. ________________________________________________________________ _ 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 reconsidered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1997-01068 in Executive Session on 3 July 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence was: Exhibit T. Second Addendum to ROP, dated 3 Apr 13, w/atchs. Exhibit U. Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Sep 13, w/atchs. Chair