RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-02228
            INDEX CODE:  100.00, 110.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE
            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 JANUARY 2008

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected  to  reflect  he  was  promoted  to  the  grade  of
technical sergeant (TSgt).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

A performance report written by a CMSgt and endorsed  by  a  Lt  Col  stated
that he should be promoted at the earliest possible date.

Had he known the Air Force would  not  give  him  the  promotion  like  they
promised, he would have stayed six more months to pin on  TSgt  stripes  and
possibly would have stayed three more years to make MSgt before he retired.

He was discriminated against.  Spot promotions came out  after  he  retired.
The last colonel he worked  for  in  1978  told  him  he  should  have  been
promoted to TSgt before 1974.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 5 Sep 46 as a  Private
and was honorably discharged 4 Aug 49 in the grade of  Sgt.   He  served  in
the Reserves from 26 Jan – 15 Aug 50  before  returning  to  regular  active
duty from 16 Aug 50 – 26 Aug 60, during which time he was promoted to  SSgt.
 He served again in the Reserves from 1 Oct 70 – 2 Sep 71  before  returning
to regular active duty from 3 Sep 71 – 30 Sep 78.  He was honorably  retired
in the grade of SSgt on 30 Sep 78.

His highest active duty grade held was SSgt (E-5).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommends denial stating  the  applicant’s  request  should  be
time barred.  They also stated his request for promotion to TSgt  should  be
denied based on merit as they found nothing in his  record  to  indicate  an
error or injustice was made  that  prevented  him  from  being  promoted  or
considered for promotion.

The application has not been filed within the  three-year  time  limitation.
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  and  inexcusably
delayed asserting a claim.  Laches consists of  two  elements:   Inexcusable
delay  and  prejudice  to  the  Air  Force  resulting  therefrom.   In   the
applicant’s case, he waited almost 28 years  after  retirement  to  petition
the AFBCMR.  Applicant’s unreasonable delay has  also  caused  prejudice  to
the Air Force as relevant records have  been  destroyed  or  are  no  longer
available, memories have failed and witnesses are unavailable.

Promotions during  the  timeframe  in  question  were  conducted  under  the
Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS).  To be considered for promotion  to
TSgt, an individual must have 18 months  time-in-grade,  possess  a  7-skill
level AFSC, have 5 years  TAFMS,  a  current  PFR  and  SKT  score,  and  be
recommended by the promotion  authority.   These  were  minimum  eligibility
requirements to be considered  for  promotion  but  in  no  way  ensured  or
guaranteed a promotion.  WAPS is composed  of  six  weighted  factors  (SKT,
PFE, APRs/EPRs, TIG, TIS and Decorations).   The  combined  score  of  these
weighted factors must be at or above the  cutoff  score  required  for  each
individual’s AFSC in order to be selected for promotion.

DPPPWB was unable to verify the  applicant’s  total  scores  or  the  scores
required for promotion in his AFSC  during  the  timeframe  in  question  as
promotion history files are only maintained for a  period  of  10  years  as
outlined in AFR 4-20, Table 35-12, Rule 29, “Records Disposition  Schedule.”
 Ten years is  generally  considered  an  adequate  period  to  resolve  any
promotion inquiries or concerns.  However, based on  his  DOR  to  SSgt,  as
well as other minimum criteria, he was eligible for consideration.

The DPPPWB complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 Aug 06, a copy of the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of  this  date,  this
office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s submission,  we  are  not  persuaded  the
applicant’s records should be changed to reflect  he  was  promoted  to  the
grade of technical sergeant (E-6).  As  stated  by  AFPC/DPPPWB,  promotions
during the timeframe in question were conducted under  the  Weighted  Airman
Promotion System (WAPS), and to be considered for promotion the  member  had
to be recommended by the promotion authority.  The fact that  his  reporting
official made a comment about promotion in his airman performance report  is
not a substitute for an official promotion recommendation.  In view  of  the
above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling
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-
02228 in Executive Session on 24 October 2006, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Panel Chair
      Mr. James L. Sommer, Member
      Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member

The following documentary evidence  pertaining  to  Docket  Number  BC-2006-
02228 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 Jul 06, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 4 Aug 06.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Aug 06.




                                             MICHAEL V. BARBINO
                                             Panel Chair