AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00588 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
    
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
He  be  promoted  to  the  ranks  of  staff  sergeant  (SSgt,  E-5)  and 
technical sergeant (TSgt, E-6). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He should have been promoted and is owed back pay. 
 
He was a jet engine mechanic and was supervised by civilians who 
called him inappropriate names. 
 
He  worked  on  UH1N  Helicopters  and  volunteered  for  Vietnam  in 
1970.  He flew every day, but was not on flying status. 
 
He  expected  to  be  promoted,  but  was  told  his  evaluations  were 
bad.  He was never told his work was not up to par. 
 
While  stationed  in  Thailand,  he  went  to  Social  Actions  to 
complain.    The  major  in  charge  of  Social  Actions  felt  he  had 
been  discriminated  against  and  asked  him  to  transfer  to  his 
group  and  the  major  was  going  to  put  him  in  for  a  promotion.  
His plane was shot down before he had the chance. 
 
The  applicant  did  not  submit  any  documents  in  support  of  his 
request.  His complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application,  extracted 
from  the  applicant's  available  military  records,  are  contained 
in  the  letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the  Air 
Force  Office  of  Primary  Responsibility  (OPR).    Accordingly, 
there  is  no  need  to  recite  these  facts  in  this  Record  of 
Proceedings. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 

 
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ  AFPC/DPSOE  recommends  denial.    DPSOE  states  the  applicant's 
delay  regarding  a  matter  now  dating  back  almost  40  years  has 
greatly  complicated  the  ability  to  determine  the  merits  of  his 
position.  DPSOE recommends the request be time barred.  Should 
the  Board  choose  to  decide  the  case,  recommend  it  be  denied 
based on lack of official documentation. 
 
Until  1970,  promotions  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.  To be considered for 
promotion  to  E-5  an  individual  must  have  had  a  minimum  of 
18 months  time-in-grade  (TIG),  a  skill  level  commensurate  with 
their Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), and be recommended by the 
commander.  Based on his date of rank (DOR) to E-4 (1 May 1969) 
he would not have had 18 months TIG before the inception of the 
Weighted Airman Performance System (WAPS). 
 
Beginning  in  1970,  airmen  were  considered  for  promotion  under 
WAPS.    To  be  considered  for  promotion  to  SSgt,  an  individual 
must  at  a  minimum  have  12  months  TIG,  possess  a  skill  level 
commensurate  with  their  AFSC,  have  a  current  Promotion  Fitness 
Examination (PFE) and Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) score, and 
be recommended by the promotion authority.  To be considered for 
promotion  to  TSgt,  an  individual  must  have  18  months  TIG  as  a 
SSgt, possess a 7-skill level, have a current PFE and SKT score, 
and be recommended by the promotion authority.  The six factors 
used in WAPS, include the SKT, PFE, time in service (TIS), TIG, 
decorations,  and  Enlisted  Performance  Reports  (EPR).    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. 
 
A  review  of  the  applicant's  record  reveals  no  orders  promoting 
him to the grade of SSgt.  His AF Form 7, Airman Military Record 
reflects no entry in the grade data section promoting him to the 
grade of SSgt.  DPSOE is unable to verify whether the applicant 
was  considered  for  promotion  to  SSgt  under  WAPS  as  promotion 
history  files  are  only  maintained  for  a  period  of  10  years  as 
outlined  in  AFR  4-20,  Records  Disposition  Schedule.    Ten  years 
is  generally  considered  an  adequate  period  to  resolve  any 
promotion inquiries or concerns. 
 
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 

 

2 

 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On 27 Apr 2012, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant 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: 
 
1.  After  careful  consideration  of  applicant’s  request  and  the 
evidence  of  record,  we  find  the  application  untimely.    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.  The applicant has not shown a sufficient reason for the 
delay  in  filing  on  a  matter  now  dating  back  almost  40  years, 
which  has  greatly  complicated  the  ability  to  determine  the 
merits  of  his  position.    We  are  also  not  persuaded  the  record 
raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on 
the  merits  based  on  the  lack  of  official  documentation  to 
support  his  request.    Thus,  we  cannot  conclude  it  would  be  in 
the interest of justice to excuse applicant’s failure to file in 
a timely manner. 
 
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(s) 
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  this  application 
in Executive Session on 2 Aug 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 
 

 

 

 Panel Chair 
 Member 
 Member 

3 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-00588: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 Nov 2011. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 18 Apr 2012. 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Apr 2012. 
 
 
 
 
                                     
 
 
 
 

Panel Chair 

 

4