RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01007
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Promotion to the grade of master sergeant  (E-7),  with  an  effective
date of rank of 1 Nov 67 (the date he entered retired Reserve status),
and retirement in the grade of E-7, with  a  waiver  of  the  two-year
Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC), if applicable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When promotions to E-7 were published on 1 Dec 54, his name was not on
the Special Orders.  There was just one Personnel Technician  promoted
that cycle at Eielson AFB, AK, and that was an individual who was  not
even working in his Primary or Control Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC)
of 73270.  He was the ranking E-6 in the 73270 career field  and  more
qualified, but was not promoted because of politics.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal  statement
and additional documents associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  his
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 Oct 67, the applicant was relieved from active duty in the grade
of technical sergeant (E-6).  He retired from active duty on 1 Nov  67
and was assigned to the retired Reserve.  He had completed a total  of
20 years and 16 days of active service for retirement.  On 14 Oct  77,
the applicant was relieved from his  retired  Reserve  assignment  and
honorably discharged in the grade of E-6, USAFR.

In 1971, the applicant applied to the Air Force Board  for  Correction
of Military Records (AFBCMR) requesting that his retirement for length
of service be changed to a disability retirement.  His application was
denied by the Board on 15 Oct 71.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted
from the applicant’s military records, are  contained  in  the  letter
prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPP stated that the applicant had continuous active  duty  in
the Air Force from 30 Aug 51 through 31 Oct 67.  He  was  promoted  to
staff sergeant (E-5) on 1 Jul 53 and to technical sergeant (E-6) on  1
Dec 61.

DPPP indicated that promotions during the  time  frame  the  applicant
states he should have been promoted, 1 Dec 64, were made at the  Major
Command, unless delegated by the Major Command to the Wing,  Group  or
Squadron levels.  HQ USAF distributed promotions quotas to  the  Major
Commands  based  on  projected  vacancies  within  each  career  field
subdivision.  To be considered for promotion  to  E-7,  an  individual
must have 24 months time-in-grade (TIG) by the  anticipated  promotion
date, possess a 7-Skill Level Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC)  and  be
recommended by the commander.   These  were  the  minimum  eligibility
requirements to be considered by the promotion board, but  in  no  way
ensured or guaranteed a promotion.

DPPP stated that the applicant’s record is of distinction and  appears
worthy of promotion.  However, the number of individuals that could be
promoted,  when  the  applicant  was  competing,  was  determined   by
projected vacancies.  The applicant has provided a Special Order  that
assigns the other E-6 (the one who was subsequently promoted)  to  the
duty of Personnel Sergeant Major, effective 1 Aug 64, with  no  change
in Duty AFSC.  DPPP stated that it would seem unlikely an  E-6  should
have been assigned this duty title,  which  could  imply  someone  was
attempting to “game” the  system.   The  applicant  also  provided  an
order, dated 4 Feb 66, that shows  this  individual’s  grade  as  E-7,
which indicates he was promoted either 1 Dec 64 or 1 Dec 65.  DPPP  is
not in a position, after 37 years,  to  either  confirm  or  deny  the
applicant’s allegation that he, not the other individual, should  have
been promoted, and whether the selection of the other  individual  was
or was not, “above board.”  DPPP defers to the decision of the Board.

The HQ AFPC/DPPP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  26
April 2002 for review and response.  As of this date, no response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit D).

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed.

3.    The application was not  filed  within  three  years  after  the
alleged error or injustice was discovered, or  reasonably  could  have
been discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10, United  States
Code (10 USC 1552, and Air Force Instruction  36-2603.   Although  the
applicant asserts a date of discovery which would,  if  correct,  make
the application timely, the essential facts which  gave  rise  to  the
application were known to applicant long before the asserted  date  of
discovery.  Knowledge of those facts constituted the date of discovery
and the beginning of the three-year  period  for  filing.   Thus,  the
application is untimely.

4.  Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552  permits  us,  in  our  discretion,  to
excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice.  We have  carefully
reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record, and we  do  not
find a  sufficient  basis  to  excuse  the  untimely  filing  of  this
application.  Accordingly, we conclude that it would  not  be  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the untimely filing of the application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The application was not timely filed  and  it  would  not  be  in  the
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision  of
the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 15 August 2002, under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
                  Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                  Mr. Billy Baxter, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01007.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 11 Apr 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Vice Chair