RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-00479
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE:  25 AUGUST 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Her late husband’s records be corrected to reflect that he was  promoted  to
Technical Sergeant (TSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her husband did not receive his  promotion  to  TSgt  as  indicated  on  his
performance report for the period 9 July 1966 through 8 July 1967.  She  and
her family found the report while they were  reviewing  her  late  husband’s
military  records.   She  believes  her  husband  was  denied  his  rightful
advancement in rank as a result of clerical issues.

In  support  of  the  application,  the  applicant   submits   documentation
extracted  from  her  late  husband’s  military  records   and   his   death
certificate.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The former military member’s separation  documents  and  enlistment  records
indicate he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 9  March  1948  with  prior
regular active duty Army service time of 2 years, 3 months and 10 days.   He
was discharged under honorable conditions on 28  March  1952  by  reason  of
expiration of term of  service.   He  served  honorably  in  the  Air  Force
Reserves from 25 June 1952 to 24 June 1955.  He enlisted in the Regular  Air
Force on 15 September 1955 and served on active duty until 30 June  1968  at
which time he was honorably relieved from active duty  and  retired  in  the
grade of staff sergeant effective 1 July 1968.  After his  last  enlistment,
he was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant  effective  and
with a date of rank of 1 September  1957.   His  total  active  service  for
retirement was 20 years, 1 month and 16 days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial of the applicant’s request.   DPPPWB  notes
the application was not filed within the imposed regulatory three-year  time
limitation.  DPPPWB states the request  may  also  be  dismissed  under  the
equitable  doctrine  of  laches,  which  denies  relief  to  one   who   has
unreasonably and  inexcusably  delayed  asserting  a  claim  (the  applicant
waited almost 37 years  after  her  husband’s  retirement  to  petition  the
Board).

DPPPWB explains the information in the block on the  AF  Form  910  –  TSgt,
SSgt and A1C Performance Report, Section VI, Duties UMD Position Occupied  –
Authorized Grade indicates the rank  or  skill  level  for  that  particular
position, not the person who  occupied  the  position.   DPPPWB  states  the
position could be filled by someone either one  grade  below  or  one  grade
above the rank of TSgt.

DPPPWB clarifies promotions during the  timeframe  the  applicant’s  husband
served on active duty 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.  DPPPWB explains to be  considered
for promotion to TSgt, an individual  must  have  21  months  time-in-grade,
possess a 7-skill level Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), and be  recommended
by  the  immediate  commander.   DPPPWB  states  these  were   the   minimum
eligibility requirements to be considered by the promotion board but  in  no
way ensured or guaranteed a promotion.

DPPPWB concludes they found no documentation (promotion  orders)  indicating
that the applicant’s husband was ever actually  selected  for  promotion  to
TSgt prior to retirement.

DPPPWB’s evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In her response dated 17 May 2005, the  applicant  states  her  husband  was
told he was up for promotion but his records were lost.  She states she  was
not aware there was a time limit for inquiries concerning a promotion.   She
indicates she does not understand the explanation given  by  the  Air  Force
Office of Primary Responsibility and does not feel  her  request  should  be
time barred (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  probable  error  or  injustice.   We  took  notice   of   the
applicant’s completion  submission  in  judging  the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force
office of primary responsibility in that no evidence exists  in  the  former
member’s records to indicate an error or injustice was made  that  prevented
his promotion to TSgt.  Additionally,  we  took  notice  that  no  promotion
order exists; demonstrating that he was ever selected for promotion to  TSgt
during his time in military service.  In the  absence  of  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no 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 probable 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 this application in  Executive
Session on 14 December 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S, Markiewicz, Chair
      Mr. Wallace F. Beard Jr., Member
      Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-2005-00479:


    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 Feb 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Former Member’s Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  AFPC/DPPPWB Letter, dated 3 May 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 May 05.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 17 May 05,
                  w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair