Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03136
Original file (BC-2002-03136.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03136
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7)  effective  1
Sep 93 or later, but not later than 1999, with back pay.

His retirement grade be changed to MSgt and he be given credit for  over
22 years for pay purposes since promotion to  MSgt  requires  two  years
retainability.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He only got to test for promotion to master sergeant one time before  he
was forced to retire due to the high year of tenure (HYT) for  technical
sergeants (TSgt) (E-6) being changed from 23 years to 20 years.  He  was
not able to study for promotion because he had been forced to leave  his
wife, whom he had only been married to for one day,  behind  when  Mount
Pinitubo erupted in the Philippines.  He focused all of  his  energy  on
correcting the injustice of leaving her behind and getting  her  to  the
states to join him.

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

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 3 Jan 73.  He retired with 20
years of service effective 1 Feb 93 due to having reached  the  HYT  for
his grade of TSgt.

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application  are  contained
in the evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air  Force
found at Exhibits C and D.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB  recommends  denial  of  the  applicant’s   requests.    The
applicant  waited  over  9  years  after  retirement   to   submit   his
application.  He gives no date as to  when  he  discovered  the  alleged
error or injustice  and  no  reason  for  is  delay  in  submitting  his
application.  Current Air Force policy  does  not  allow  for  automatic
promotion as the applicant is requesting.  The applicant had essentially
two and a half years to prepare for testing to MSgt since he  was  aware
that he would be eligible for promotion to MSgt whenever  his  promotion
to TSgt was announced.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPRRP addresses the  applicant’s  retirement  processing  actions.
They found no error or injustices in the applicant’s retirement process.
 They make no recommendation regarding the applicant’s requests.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his first  response  to  the  Air  Force  evaluation,  the  applicant
requested that his application be temporarily withdrawn while he  waited
on the results of a freedom of information act (FOIA) request to  obtain
critical  documents.   He  also  justifies  the  late  filing   of   his
application by stating that he never knew about the AFBCMR process.   He
provides the names and numbers of individuals he claims can verify this.
 He also asserts that his participation in Operation Just Cause in FY 90
left him little time to study for promotion  testing.   He  also  states
that the point of his application is that he wanted  to  earn  his  MSgt
stripes, but was only allowed to serve 20 years.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

The applicant submitted a further response to his application to  update
his temporary withdrawal request and states that he is still awaiting  a
response to his FOIA request.  He again discusses how the change in  the
HYT affected his promotion opportunity to MSgt.

The complete submission is at Exhibit G.

The applicant submitted a third letter in support  of  his  appeal.   He
requests that his case be restarted.  He states that he has been advised
that his FOIA request will not be honored.   The  applicant  attaches  a
copy of his enlisted performance report to support his  contention  that
he was too busy to study for promotion testing.  He again discusses  how
the change in the HYT affected his promotion opportunity to MSgt.

The complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

The applicant submitted another letter in reference to his  application.
It appears now that the applicant wants to be promoted to the  grade  of
chief master sergeant (CMSgt) (E-9).  The applicant again discusses  the
background of his case.  The applicant states that he  wants  two  years
pay as a CMSgt.  He believes that if he had been selected for  MSgt,  he
would have stayed and tested until he made SMSgt and then CMSgt.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

The applicant submitted a final letter in support of his application and
provided a copy of a letter from his congressman,  a  letter  addressing
the status of his FOIA request, and an article from the Air Force  Times
that discusses the change in the HYT.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  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.   The  applicant  does
not assert a date of  discovery,  which  would,  if  correct,  make  the
application timely.   The  essential  facts,  which  gave  rise  to  the
application, appear to have been known well before a date  of  discovery
that would make this  application  timely.   Knowledge  of  those  facts
constituted the date of discovery and the beginning  of  the  three-year
period for filing.  Thus the application is untimely.

2.  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.  The
applicant has not shown a plausible reason for delay in filing,  and  we
are not persuaded that the record raises issues of  error  or  injustice
which require resolution on the merits at this  time.   Accordingly,  we
conclude that it would not be in the interest of justice to  excuse  the
untimely filing of the application.

______________________________________________________________

DECISION OF THE BOARD:

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 Docket Number 02-03136  in
Executive Session on 6 March 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Panel Chair
      Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Sep 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 24 Oct 02
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPRRP, dated 21 Nov 02,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Nov 02.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Dec 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jan 03.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Jan 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Jan 03, w/atchs.




                                   JOSEPH A. ROJ
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03136

    Original file (BC-2002-03136.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03136 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSgt) (E-7) effective 1 Sep 93 or later, but not later than 1999, with back pay. The applicant states that he wants two years pay as a CMSgt. The applicant...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01075

    Original file (BC-2003-01075.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    AFI 36-2606 states that the appeal authority for individuals like the applicant with more than 20 years of service would be his group commander. Based on HQ AFPC/DPPRRP’s advisory (Exhibit E), the group commander’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) contacted the HQ AFPC retirements section to advise that the group commander was going to complete the AF Form 418. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB advises the applicant was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00872

    Original file (BC-2007-00872.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was demoted to staff sergeant (SSgt) less than two years before his retirement. _________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9903222

    Original file (9903222.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    His retirement documents were completed with everything for him to sign as a SSgt based on verbal information from the AFOSI. The applicant states that he was not court-martialed because there was no evidence against him. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00344

    Original file (BC-2006-00344.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    However, the Board decided to grant the applicant a measure of relief based on clemency and promoted him to the grade of senior airman with a DOR of 1 Oct 03, which allowed him an opportunity to test for promotion to the grade of SSgt and allow him to retire in that grade. They further note that HYT extensions are designed to address specific problems and issues, not to allow a member the opportunity to test for the next higher grade, which they believe the applicant’s request is based on. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02215

    Original file (BC-2007-02215.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her promotion test to staff sergeant (SSgt) for cycle 88A5 be scored and credited for promotion. DPPPWB finds no error or injustice occurred when the applicant was required to retest after it was discovered that she took the wrong test. ________________________________________________________________ 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9900789

    Original file (9900789.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant had not requested supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to master sergeant (MSgt) and, by the time his case was considered, he had retired on 1 Jul 99 in the grade of TSgt with 21 years and 4 days of active service. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit E. On 9 Feb 00, the applicant submitted an addendum to his original appeal. Mr. Wheeler voted to include the AM for consideration in the TSgt and MSgt promotion cycles with subsequent...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00612

    Original file (BC-2011-00612.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He receive retirement pay in the rank of CMSgt from the date of promotion. On 21 Apr 03, the AFBCMR approved his request and directed that his records be corrected to reflect that he was not discharged on 14 Dec 00, but on that date he was continued on active duty, promoted to MSgt on 30 May 02, discharged under honorable conditions on 31 May 02, and retired on 1 Jun 02 for length of service in the grade of MSgt. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2004-00487-2

    Original file (BC-2004-00487-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant’s enlistment date was 5 Dec 01 and his date of separation (DOS) was 4 Dec 03. Counsel’s complete submission is at Exhibit K. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After a careful reconsideration of the applicant's request and his most recent submission, we do not find it sufficiently compelling to warrant a revision of the Board’s prior decision in this case. Exhibit K. Letter, Counsel, dated 23 Nov 08.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02847

    Original file (BC-2003-02847.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    According to emails provided by the applicant (Exhibit A), on 20 Mar 02 his squadron section requested a test date for him as he had not been identified on the promotion eligibility roster. A test date was obtained for him and, although he did not test in the regular window, his test score was considered for that testing cycle. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did...