RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04376 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His rank at the time of his discharge be corrected to reflect 
(E-7) master sergeant versus (E-6) technical sergeant. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was denied promotion due to the promotion system in affect at 
the time. 

 

His performance was satisfactory and his rating official at times 
was not his supervisor. 

 

The injustice occurred when he was relieved from his First 
Sergeant duties to create a vacancy for returning personnel from 
overseas assignments who outranked him, and then assigning him to 
duties in a frozen career field with no hope for promotion. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
DD Form 214, Armed Forces of United States Report of Transfer or 
Discharge, Retirement Order, a letter to the Department of 
Personnel, United States Air Force, and a letter from his 
Congressman. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 3 Sep 47. 
He was promoted to airman first class effective 15 Apr 49, to 
staff sergeant on 13 Feb 52, and technical sergeant on 1 Oct 54. 

 

His DD Form 214 reflects he was honorably retired in the grade of 
technical sergeant (E-6) effective 30 Sep 67, after serving 
20 years and 28 days on active duty. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 


AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be time barred; however, 
should the Board decide the case that it be denied based on lack 
of official documentation. 

 

DPSOE states the applicant’s case has not been filed within the 
three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force 
Board for Correction of Military Records. 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 there from. In the applicant’s case, he waited more 
than 43 years after his retirement before he petition the AFBCMR. 

 

DPSOE states they were unable to verify whether the applicant was 
considered for promotion to master sergeant, 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. Promotions during the 
timeframe the applicant is requesting promotion were made at the 
Major Command, unless delegated by the Major Command to the Wing, 
Group, of 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. Basic 
eligibility requirements such as time in grade, skill level, and 
recommendation by the commander were necessary for consideration, 
but in no way guaranteed promotion. 

 

DPSOA found no documentation (nomination list or orders) 
promoting the applicant to the grade of master sergeant. 

 

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

He has no further comments to make except that he realizes his 
request is way overdue for consideration, but what he stated in 
his original correspondence is the true facts of what happened 
during his 20 plus years in the Air Force. His reason for 
submitting his request is he had a friend who mentioned he too 
had problems with reporting officials who were not directly his 
supervisor. He would like to wear the E-7 rank and not receive 


any back pay. He does not want the Government to be assessed for 
back pay. 

 

He is not looking for any monetary remuneration. The question is 
“why was he not promoted,” was the system in place at the time of 
his retirement a fair and equitable one, compared to the system 
in place today? 

 

The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 

 

1. 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 that 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. 

 

2. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel 
will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. 
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 
BC-2010-04376 in Executive Session on 23 Aug 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 


The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number 
Bc-2010-04376 was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 Dec 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Feb 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair