RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03659 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Airman Performance Reports (APR), rendered for the 
periods 7 Feb 69 through 30 Sep 69 and 1 Oct 69 through 
31 Mar 70, be removed from his records, or the overall rating 
for each be upgraded to a “9.” 

 

2. He be retroactively awarded the Meritorious Service Medal 
(MSM) or Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for his service in 
the Republic of Vietnam. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. For one year of service to his country, he received two 
unjust, nonfactual, and inaccurate ratings of his performance. 
Both APRs are identical and the ratings represent a gross error 
and injustice. The actions of his rating officials were wrong 
and should never have happened. They failed as senior non-
commissioned officers to perform accurate and factual ratings on 
their subordinates. He was the night shift supervisor of the 
phase dock during the period in question which is not reflected 
on his APR. 

 

2. The only awards he received for his service in Vietnam were 
issued by the government of Vietnam. He worked hard under 
extremely difficult conditions (e.g. weather, the environment, 
and regular rocket attacks). He did not have the support of the 
American people or the two supervisors that were there to put in 
their time and go home. They were too lazy to do the right 
thing. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
performance reports, to include the contested reports, as well 
as a proposed citation for the requested award. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 


STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant’s military personnel records indicate he served in 
the Regular Air Force and was progressively promoted to the 
grade of senior master sergeant (E-8), effective and with a date 
of rank of 1 Sep 85. 

 

On 30 Sep 88, he was released from active duty and retired for 
length of service on 1 Oct 88. He was credited with 21 years 
and 28 days of total active service. 

 

On 17 Dec 10, AFPC/DPSIDRA notified the applicant that he had 
failed to exhaust all of his administrative remedies relative to 
his request for a decoration and provided him with guidance 
pertaining to the administrative remedies available under the 
provisions of the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act. 
Additionally, they notified him of their determination of his 
entitlement to four bronze service stars (BSS) to his previously 
awarded Vietnam Service Medal and their action to correct his 
records administratively. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of 
the Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial with respect to the applicant’s 
request for removal or upgrade of the contested APRs, indicating 
there is no evidence of an error or injustice. While the 
applicant believes the identical performance reports issued to 
him while in Vietnam represent an injustice; AFM 36-62 does not 
prohibit evaluators from doing so. Paragraph 4-6(b)(2) states 
that reporting officials should prepare the narrative portion of 
the report with a sincere desire to communicate their evaluation 
to the ratee. Additionally, while the applicant states the 
reports are identical, the additional endorsements are different 
and signed by different evaluators. Furthermore, an evaluation 
report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best 
judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted 
for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants 
correction or removal from the record. The burden of proof is 
on the applicant and he has not substantiated the contested 
reports were not rendered in good faith by all evaluators based 
on knowledge available at the time. The applicant’s request to 
void or upgrade the reports should be denied based on the 
merits, but can also be denied under the equitable doctrine of 
laches, which denies relief to one who has unreasonably and 
inexcusably delayed in asserting a claim. In the applicant’s 
case, he waited 41 years to file his application and took no 
prior action. As a result of this delay, the Air Force no 
longer has documents on file concerning this issue and memories 


have faded, undermining the Air Force’s ability to determine the 
merits of his position. 

 

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSID 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 4 Feb 11 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit D). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 

 

We have carefully reviewed the applicant’s submission and the 
evidence of record and do not find a sufficient basis to excuse 
the untimely filing of this application. The applicant did not 
file within three years after the alleged error or injustice was 
discovered as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 
1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for 
Correction of Military Records. The applicant has not shown a 
plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not 
persuaded the record raises issues of error or injustice which 
require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it 
would be in the interest of justice to excuse the untimely 
filing of this 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-03659 in Executive Session on 6 Jul 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2010-03659 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Oct 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 27 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Feb 11. 

 


 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair