AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00732 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
    
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
The  reduction  in  rank  to  sergeant  (Sgt,  E-4)  that  he  received 
pursuant to a nonjudicial punishment action be set aside and his 
rank be restored to staff sergeant (SSgt, E-5). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
His record had been outstanding for seven years. 
 
The punishment was overly severe and harsh.  At the time of the 
Article  15,  the  Numbered  Air  Force  determined  that  the 
punishment was overly severe and therefore returned the Article 
15 for corrections.  However, all of their records on the matter 
have  been  destroyed.    Even  with  the  amount  of  time  that  has 
passed  the  injustice  of  his  reduction  in  rank  needs  to  be 
corrected. 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement,  copies  of  his  DD  Form  214,  Report  of  Transfer  or 
Discharge;  AF  Forms  1098,  Personnel  Action  Request,  and  his 
Airman Performance Reports. 
 
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 5 Jun 1964, the applicant entered the Regular Air Force and 
was  progressively  promoted  to  the  rank  of  SSgt  with  a  date  of 
rank of 1 Aug 1967. 
 
On 5 Dec 1967, his commander changed his status from present for 
duty to absent without leave (AWOL). 
 
The applicant remained on AWOL status until 8 Dec 1967 when he 
voluntarily returned to duty. 
 
On  13  Dec  1967,  he  was  reduced  in  rank  from  SSgt  to  Sgt  as  a 
result of an Article 15 action. 
 

 

 

On 7 Jun 1968, he was honorably discharged at the expiration of 
his term of service in the rank of Sgt. 
 
The  remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application, 
extracted  from  the  applicant's  military  records,  are  contained 
in  the  letter  prepared  by  the  appropriate  office  of  the  Air 
Force at Exhibit D. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFLOA/JAJM recommends the Board deny the applicant’s request as 
untimely or on the merits.  JAJM states he does not assert that 
his  Article  15  was  unjust  or  inappropriate,  but  instead  merely 
advocates  that  his  rank  should  be  restored  because  the 
punishment was overly harsh and severe.  He also claims that the 
Numbered Air Force returned the Article 15 action because of the 
punishment's severity.  Despite his assertions, there is nothing 
in  his  case  file  to  suggest  that  the  Article  15  was  found 
legally  insufficient  because  the  Numbered  Air  Force  determined 
it was overly severe.  Instead, his records indicate that he was 
reduced in rank because of an Article 15.  If the Article 15 was 
declared legally insufficient, then this reduction in rank would 
not be reflected in his records.  The commander at the time of 
this  nonjudicial  punishment  action  had  the  best  opportunity  to 
evaluate the evidence in this case.  With that perspective, the 
commander  exercised  the  discretion  that  the  applicant  granted 
him  when  the  applicant  accepted  the  Article  15  and  found  the 
nonjudicial punishment appropriate in this case. 
 
The applicant does not make a compelling argument that the Board 
should overturn the commander's original, nonjudicial punishment 
decision on the basis of injustice.  The commander's punishment 
decision  was  well  with  the  limits  of  the  commander's  authority 
and discretion. 
 
The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOE  defers  to  JAJM’s  recommendation  of  denial.    DPSOE 
states the application has not been filed within the three-year 
time  limitation  imposed  by  AFI  36-2603,  Air  Force  Board  for 
Correction  of  Military  Records  (AFBCMR).    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  over 
44 years after discharge before he petitioned the AFBCMR. 
 
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 

 

2 

 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
On  6  Nov  2012,  copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were 
forwarded  to  the  applicant  for  review  and  comment  within 
30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this 
office (Exhibit E). 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 
 
After  careful  consideration  of  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  45  years.    We  are  also  not  persuaded  the  record 
raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on 
the  merits.    Despite  his  assertions,  there  is  nothing  in  his 
case  file  to  suggest  that  the  Article  15  was  found  legally 
insufficient  because  the  Numbered  Air  Force  determined  it  was 
overly  severe.    Instead,  his  records  indicate  that  he  was 
reduced in rank because of an Article 15.  Therefore, in view of 
the  above,  we  cannot  conclude  it  would  be  in  the  interest  of 
justice  to  excuse  the  applicant’s  failure  to  file  in  a  timely 
manner. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

3 

 
The  following  members  of  the  Board  considered  this  application 
in Executive Session on 11 Dec 2012, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 
 
     Panel Chair 
     Member 
     Member 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-00732: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 22 Feb 2012, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 11 Oct 2012. 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 17 Oct 2012. 
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Nov 2012. 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 

  Panel Chair 

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

4