AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01359
COUNSEL: NONE
IN THE MATTER OF:
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he was promoted to the rank
of airman third class (A3C, E-2) at the completion of Basic
Military Training.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His promotion was mistakenly given to someone else. Had he
been promoted on time, he would have been separated one rank
higher (E-5 versus E-4).
In support of his request the applicant provides a personal
statement, copies of his DD Form 214, Report of Separation from
the Armed Forces of the United States, and available copies of
his military records.
His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 17 Jul 1950, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.
On 4 Dec 1953, the applicant was honorably discharged in the
rank of airman first class (A1C, E-4). He served 3 years, 4
months, and 18 days on active duty.
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 B.
________________________________________________________________
1
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicant's request be time barred.
Should the Board choose to decide the case, DPSOE recommends
it be denied based on lack of official documentation. 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 more than 58 years after discharge
before he petitioned the AFBCMR.
Due to the passage of time and lack of promotion history
files, DPSOE is unable to determine why the applicant was
promoted to his various ranks on the dates reflected in his
record. However, the total time-in-grade required to be
considered for promotion from E-1 to E-4 was 30 months, and
the applicant was promoted at the 31-month timeframe. In the
absence of any documentation to the contrary, DPSOE has no
choice but to assume he was promoted when eligible and
recommended, and he was discharged in the correct grade.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit B.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 8 Aug 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 C).
________________________________________________________________
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 over 58 years, which has greatly complicated the ability to
determine the merits of his position. We are also not persuaded
2
the record raises issues of error or injustice which require
resolution on the merits. He has not provided evidence that
supports he is the victim of error or injustice. 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.
________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC-
2011-2012-01359 in Executive Session on 15 Nov 2012, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-01359:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 2012, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Jul 2012.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 2012.
Panel Chair
3
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05259
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05259 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect his grade as staff sergeant (E-5) rather than airman first class (E-4). The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force,...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00732
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. He also claims that the Numbered Air Force returned the Article 15 action because of the punishment's severity. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00065
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00065 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her rank of E-3, airman first class be corrected to reflect E-4, sergeant. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be time barred. The application was not filed...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01967
DPSOE states although they cannot determine whether the applicant was actually considered and selected for promotion to SMSgt, they can verify that he would have become ineligible for promotion due to his declination of assignment to Vietnam. The application has not been filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for 2 Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-00080
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00080 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grades of senior master sergeant (E-8) and chief master sergeant (E-9). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00817
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00817 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank at the time of discharge reflects staff sergeant (SSgt) rather than sergeant (Sgt). 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, paragraph 3.5, 1 March 1996. The applicants complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04138
________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He should have been promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5) as he had sufficient time in grade at the time of his separation. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary which is attached at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03962
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03962 COUNSEL: NONE (DECEASED FORMER SERVICE MEMBER) HEARING DESIRED: NO (APPLICANT) APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. The service member received an overall rating of 9 on the APR rendered for the period 20 Jul 74 through 26 May 75 with a recommendation to promote. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04376
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. His DD Form 214 reflects he was honorably retired in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) effective 30 Sep 67, after serving 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03312
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPRs) which are attached at Exhibits C, D and E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID does not make a recommendation as to whether or not the applicants actions constitute extraordinary heroism, but defers to SAF/MRBP. Recommend the applicants request be denied since the AmM would...