AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01967 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
He be promoted to the rank of senior master sergeant (SMSgt, E-
8). 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He was informed by the Personnel office that he was selected for 
promotion  to  SMSgt.    At  the  same  time  he  was  informed  that  he 
had an assignment to Vietnam. 
 
He  had  not  seen  his  relatives  for  over  20  years;  therefore  he 
refused the assignment and was subsequently not promoted to the 
rank of SMSgt. 
 
The applicant provides no documents in support of his request.   
 
His complete submission is at Exhibit A. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  entered  active  duty  on  9  Dec  1951  and  was 
progressively promoted to the rank of master sergeant (MSgt, E-
7) effective 1 Mar 1969.  His DD 214, Armed Forces of the United 
States  Report  of  Transfer  or  Discharge,  reflects  he  was 
honorably  retired  in  the  rank  of  MSgt  after  serving  20  years, 
3 months, and 19 days of active service. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial.  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).    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 
40 years  after  retirement  to  petition  the  AFBCMR.    His 
unreasonable delay has also caused prejudice to the Air Force as 
relevant records have been destroyed or are no longer available, 
memories have failed and witnesses are unavailable. 
 
A  review  of  the  applicant's  record  reveals  no  score  notice  or 
orders  promoting  him  to  the  grade  of  SMSgt.  DPSOE  was  also 
unable  to  verify  whether  the  applicant  was  considered  for 
promotion to SMSgt under WAPS as his 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.    However,  if  the  applicant  was  selected  for 
promotion  to  SMSgt,  he  would  have  incurred  a  two  year  Active 
Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) from his projected “pin-on” date 
in  accordance  with  AFR  39-29,  Promotion  of  Airmen.    He  states 
that he would have extended to accept the promotion as required, 
but  did  not  want  to  accept  a  pending  assignment  to  Vietnam.  
When  he  declined  the  assignment,  he  became  ineligible  for 
promotion. 
 
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
He was told that if he accepted the promotion to SMSgt he would 
have to be reassigned.  He assumed it would be to Vietnam since 
he had not previously been assigned there. 
 
He wasted precious time in submitting his application; however, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  insult  him  by  saying  that  his 
unreasonable delay caused prejudice to the Air Force.  The best 
years  of  his  life  were  in  the  Air  Force.    He  cannot  be  blamed 
for  his  records  not  being  available.    He  is  80  years  old; 
however, his memories have not failed him. 
 
All  involved  are  aware  that  there  was  no  order  involving  his 
promotion  because  it  was  not  made  official.  He  was  considered 
even  if  his  records  were  not  located.    He  did  not  refuse 
retention  and  the  recommendation  for  denial  of  his  request  is 
not  justified.    There  are  many  active  duty  members  who  refused 
to go to Vietnam.  There could never be a better American then 
himself. 
 
His complete submission is at Exhibit E. 

 

2

 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 
 
After  careful  consideration  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  the 
applicant’s  rebuttal  to  the  Office  of  Primary  Responsibility 
(OPR) advisory, 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  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  applicant’s  submission,  it  would  appear  that  even 
if he was selected for promotion at the time, he was unwilling 
to  accept  an  assignment  to  Vietnam.    As  such,  pursuant  to  the 
policy at the time, he became ineligible for promotion.  He has 
not provided evidence that supports he is the victim of error or 
injustice.  The applicant’s service to his country is noted and 
our  decision  in  no  way  lessens  our  regard  for  his  service.  
However, 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-
2012-01967  in  Executive  Session  on  18  Oct  2012,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 

, Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
 

 
 

 

 
 

 

4

 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR BC-
2012-01967: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 2012. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOE, dated 8 Jun 2012. 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 Jun 2012. 
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Jul 2012. 
 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Chair 
 
 

 

4