Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03542
Original file (BC 2013 03542.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	 	   DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03542
                                   COUNSEL:  NONE
  	 			   HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the grade of Master Sergeant 
(MSgt).

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In 1969, he was hospitalized for almost two years as a result of 
injuries incurred during a helicopter crash and was not 
considered for promotion to the grade of MSgt.  

He should have received fair and just consideration for 
promotion to the grade of MSgt based on his Time in Service 
(TIS), Time in Grade (TIG) and proficiency reports. 

His records were corrected to show he was awarded the Purple 
Heart (PH). He should receive supplemental promotion 
consideration to the grade of MSgt based on the correction to 
his records.    

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, his Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating 
decision, copies of his retirement order, AF Form 1042, Medical 
Recommendation for Flying Duty; AFBCMR Directive, DD Form 214, 
Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or 
Discharge; and DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty.  

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 1 Jun 1955, the applicant entered active duty.

On 19 Jul 1969, while assigned at U-Tapeo AB, Thailand he was 
injured in a helicopter crash and was hospitalized. The 
applicant sustained multiple facial fractures, left hip 
fracture, avulsed right patella, lacerated left kidney, injury 
to his lungs and skull fracture.

On 1 Oct 1970, he was promoted to the grade of Technical 
Sergeant (TSgt).  

On 31 Aug 1976, he was retired in the grade of TSgt. 

He served 21 years, 2 months and 30 days on active duty.  

On 8 Mar 2013, his records were corrected to show he was awarded 
the PH on 19 Jul 1969.  

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicant’s request be time barred.  
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.  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 almost 37 years after 
retirement before he petitioned the corrections to his record.  

Based on the applicant’s Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of 
TSgt, he would have been eligible for promotion consideration to 
the grade of MSgt under the Weighted Airman Promotion System 
(WAPS) beginning with cycle 73A7.  DPSOE is unable to verify 
whether the applicant was considered for promotion or if the 
addition of the PH would have rendered him a select during a 
particular cycle as promotion history files are only maintained 
for a period of 10 years as outlined in AFR 4-20, Records 
Disposition Schedule, paragraph 35-12, Rule 29.  Ten years is 
generally considered an adequate period to resolve any promotion 
concerns.  

Should the Board choose to decide the case, DPSOE recommends the 
applicant’s request for supplemental promotion consideration to 
the grade of MSgt be denied since the files used in the 
promotion process no longer exist.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.  

________________________________________________________________

 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 29 Oct 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.  As of 
this date, this office has not received a response (Exhibit D). 

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.  We note that 
on 8 Mar 2013, the applicant’s records were retroactively 
corrected to show he was awarded the PH on 19 Jul 1969.  In view 
of this correction the applicant is now requesting supplemental 
promotion consideration to the grade of MSgt with the inclusion 
of the PH.  Regrettably, promotion records are only kept on file 
for 10 years In Accordance With (IAW) AFR 4-20, Records 
Disposition Schedule, as such, there are no promotion records 
available to verify whether the applicant was considered for 
promotion or if the award of the PH would have rendered him a 
select.  Therefore, we find no basis to recommend granting the 
relief sought in this application.  

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the 
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered 
with this application.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2013-03542 in Executive Session on 15 May 2014, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

 	 , Panel Chair
         , Member
         , Member



The following documentary evidence in AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2013-03542 was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 2013, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records.  
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 6 Sep 2013.  
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Oct 2013.  

 


                                      
                                    Panel Chair  


 

 

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03312

    Original file (BC 2013 03312.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His Date of Rank (DOR) to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) be corrected to 31 Jul 2001 (Administratively Corrected). In a letter dated 10 Jan 2014, AFPC/DPSOE advised the applicant his DOR to the grades of SrA, SSgt, TSgt and MSgt were administratively corrected and that he would receive supplemental promotion consideration for promotion to the grade of SMSgt during the May 2014 Senior Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) Supplemental Promotion Board. After a thorough review of the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 04035 (2)

    Original file (BC 2013 04035 (2).txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    In a letter dated 22 Oct 13, the demotion authority reinstated his grade to SSgt with his original Date of Rank (DOR) of 9 Jan 13. As such, if the applicant wants to make a request to remove the referral EPRs, he must first exhaust all available avenues of administrative relief provided by existing law or regulations, such as the Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) prior to seeking relief before this Board, as required by the governing Air Force Instruction. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03962

    Original file (BC 2013 03962.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2013 | BC-2012-03318

    Original file (BC-2012-03318.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Notwithstanding the correction to his records, the applicant asserts he would have been promoted to TSgt effective 1 Jan 2012 had his CAFSC been correctly reflected in his records. We note that the applicant’s effective date of his CAFSC was corrected and he received supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of TSgt in his CAFSC and was selected. The applicant is now contending that had his CAFSC been correctly reflected in his records in Aug 2010, he would have been promoted to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01967

    Original file (BC-2012-01967.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2013 | BC 2013 00264

    Original file (BC 2013 00264.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-00264 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. As a result of the failed FA’s, his projected promotion to the grade of SSgt was cancelled and he received a referral EPR. Although DPSOE initially recommended denial of the applicant’s request to be supplementally considered for promotion to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01507

    Original file (BC-2007-01507.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant provided a statement in his own behalf. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the active duty Air Force on 14 Jul 52 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt). 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03464

    Original file (BC 2013 03464.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Her current Date of Rank (DOR) be changed from 1 June 2013, to 28 May 2009; the date she reentered the Regular Air Force 3. They reaccomplished the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service (TAFMS)_ evaluation worksheet based upon her updated point credit summary report and deemed that she still does not meet the requirements in accordance with AFI 36- 2002, Regular Air Force and Special Category Accessions, paragraph Attachment 4, paragraph A4.2, Prior Service (PS) Date of Rank and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05725

    Original file (BC 2013 05725.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The application has not been filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. Based on his DOR to Sgt, he would have been eligible for promotion consideration to the grade of SSgt beginning in 1969.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02988

    Original file (BC 2013 02988.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility which is listed at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be time barred. Promotion Boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. With regard to his request for award of the LOM, there was no evidence...