RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-01244
            INDEX CODE:  128.05
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  26 OCT 2007

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he was discharged  in  the  grade  of
airman (E-2), rather than airman basic (E-1).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His promotion was being withheld pending the outcome of an Article 15.
 The punishment he received with the Article 15  included  restriction
to limits the of the base for 14 days and two hours of extra duty  per
day for 14 days.

In support of his request,  the  applicant  provided  DD  Form  303AF,
Certificate in Lieu of Lost  or  Destroyed  Discharge,  DD  Form  214,
Report of Separation from  Active  Duty,  AF  Form  100,  Request  and
Authorization for Separation and DD Form 4, Enlistment  Contract-Armed
Forces of the United States.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s records reflect he enlisted in the Regular  Air  Force
on 6 March 1974, for a period of four years.

On 29 August 1974, he was  notified  by  his  commander  that  he  was
recommending he be discharged from the Air Force.  The basis for  this
action was that on 19 July 1974,  he  was  counseled  for  failing  to
maintain his barracks up to standards, failing to repair to  mandatory
GI parties on 2, 9 and 16 June 1974, failing to return to school after
scheduled appointment, for being absent from remedial training  on  25
June 1974  and  failing  to  report  to  the  next  military  training
instructor (MTI) as directed; on 19 July 1974, he  was  counseled  for
missing a mandatory briefing,  using  vulgar  language  to  a  student
leader, and disrespect to a non-commissioned officer; on 5 July  1974,
he was given a Letter of Reprimand for failing  to  meet  a  mandatory
formation; on 23 July 1974, he was given an Article 15 for failing  to
obey a lawful order by having a female in his dormitory room; on 8 and
9 August 1974, he was absent from morning detail; on 14 August 1974 he
was late for mandatory AFI formation at 0600 hours; on 16 August 1974,
he failed to do his assigned squadron details, and on 19 August  1974,
he was late for mandatory AFI formation at 0600 hours.

He acknowledged receipt of the notification of  discharge,  and  after
consulting with counsel, waived his  right  to  a  hearing  before  an
administrative discharge board and elected not to submit statements in
his own behalf.  The discharge case was reviewed  by  the  base  legal
office and found to be legally sufficient to support discharge.

The discharge authority approved his separation and ordered a  general
(under  honorable  conditions)   discharge   without   probation   and
rehabilitation (P&R).

He was separated on 20 September 1974, under the provisions of AFM 39-
12, Chapter 2, Section B, (Frequent  Involvement  of  a  Discreditable
Nature with Civil or Military Authorities).   He  received  a  general
(under honorable conditions) discharge.

He served a total of 6 months and 15 days on active duty.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

DPPPWB recommends denial.  DPPPWB states the application was not filed
within the three-year time limitation  imposed  by  AFI  36-2303,  Air
Force Board for Correction of  Military  Records,  (AFBCMR)  paragraph
3.5, 1 March 1996.  In addition to being untimely under the statute of
limitations, the applicant’s request may also be dismissed  under  the
equitable doctrine of laches, which  denies  relief  to  one  who  has
unreasonably  delayed  asserting  a  claim.   Laches  consist  of  two
elements; inexcusable delay and prejudice to the Air  Force  resulting
there from.  According to DPPPWB the applicant  waited  more  than  31
years after discharge to petition the AFBCMR.  He gives no reason  for
his delay in petitioning the Board.

DPPPWB states in accordance  with  AFR  39-29,  Promotion  of  Airmen,
1 August 1972, paragraph 8a, an airman basic is promoted to airman (E-
2) when he completes  four  months  of  active  duty  in  his  current
enlistment unless there are compelling reasons why he  should  not  be
promoted or he is ineligible according  to  table  3.   Based  on  the
applicant’s date of rank (DOR) of 6 March 1974  to  airman  basic,  he
would have been eligible for  promotion  to  airman  on  6 July  1974;
however, there were many compelling reasons why he was not promoted.

There are no orders in his  record  promoting  him  to  the  grade  of
airman.  However, there is one document that refers to him  as  “Amn”.
It is the letter of administrative reprimand, hand-dated 5 July  1974.
DPPPWB assumes this to  be  an  error  as  he  was  not  eligible  for
promotion based on his history of misconduct.

The DPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
26 May 2006, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this  date,
no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.   The  Board  notes  insufficient
evidence has been provided which would lead us to believe the rules of
the  applicable  regulations  were  inappropriately  applied  or   the
applicant was denied rights to which he was entitled.   Therefore,  we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force  office  of
primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the  basis  for  our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an  error  or
injustice.  In the absence of persuasive 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 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 Docket  Number  BC-2006-
01244 in Executive Session on 12 July 2006 under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Debra K. Walker, Member
                 Ms. Judith B. Oliva, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 06, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 10 May 06.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 May 06.





                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair