RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-03618
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be granted supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for the period 21 Feb 68 through 21 Dec 68 should have been considered for the contested promotion cycle. He was awarded the AFCM; however, it does not appear the decoration value of three points was calculated in his promotion score.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicants military personnel records indicate that he enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 22 Jul 54.
On 1 Dec 68, the applicant was promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5).
On 10 Jan 69, the applicant was awarded the AFCM for meritorious service during the period of 21 Feb 68 through 21 Dec 68.
On 1 Feb 75, the applicant retired from the Air Force and was credited with 20 years, 6 months, and 9 days of total active service.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the letter prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility, which is attached at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicants request be time barred. In accordance with AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, the applicant did not file his application within the three-year statute of limitation. Based on the applicants date of rank to E-5, he would have been eligible for promotion consideration to E-6, beginning with cycle 72A6. He has waited more than 38 years after retirement to petition for consideration of promotion to E-6, and has not provided any reasonable or excusable purpose for his delay in asserting a claim. Promotion history files are only maintained for a period of 10 years; therefore, verification of his consideration for promotion to E-6 cannot be verified. Also, there is no way to ascertain if the addition of the AFCM would have rendered him a select during any particular cycle. Furthermore, the applicant has provided no supporting documentation (score notice) or information concerning which promotion cycle he missed promotion by three points to E-6. Ten years is generally considered an adequate period to resolve any promotion inquiries or concerns. As such, in this case, files and data regarding the applicants promotion process no longer exist, so if not time barred, his request should be denied based on the merits of the case.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 24 Feb 14 for review and comment within 30 days. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.
2. After careful consideration of the applicants request and the available 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, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we are not persuaded the record raises issues of error or injustice which require resolution on the merits. Thus, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicants failure to file in a timely manner.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2013-03618 in Executive Session on 19 Jun 14, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 13, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 11 Oct 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 Feb 14.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2009-00901
The DPSOE response was negative and they state that being awarded the PH may not have made a difference to his promotion in the 75B7 promotion cycle. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice that require resolution on its merits. Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the untimely filing of the application regarding his request for promotion to...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03077
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03077 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be considered for supplemental promotion to the grade of Master Sergeant (MSgt) by the Cycle 95E7 promotion board. The applicant's request for supplemental promotion consideration for cycle 95E7 was denied by AFPC/DPPPW (Enlisted Promotions) on 21 Aug 95 due to noncompliance with AF policy (AFI 36-2502,...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 01137
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the memorandum prepared by the Air Force office of primary responsibility (OPR), which is attached at Exhibit C. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial due to the untimely filing of this application. He had a date for promotion to SSgt under the WAPS system in 1970, and if he had reenlisted he would have been promoted. Due to the fact that he was not awarded the PH and AFCM in 2009 and 2010, timing...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03240
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are described in the memoranda prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility (OPR), which are included at Exhibits C, D, and E. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIDR recommends granting relief to change the RDP date and Given Under Hand date of the applicants 14 Nov 13 AFCM, indicating there is evidence of an error or injustice. It is recommended the Board grant the applicants request and determine an appropriate RDP...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-04722
She requested supplemental consideration for selection to E-6, but her request was denied and she was told to file a claim with the Air Force Board of Corrections of Military Records. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C and D. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial, indicating...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02893
Prior to submitting his request to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFCMR), he submitted a supplemental promotion consideration package to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) promotions section requesting that both decorations be considered. He spoke with the Base Level Awards and Decoration Element, researched the Air Education and Training Command policy and AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Military Awards and Decorations Program, and found the Décor-6 reflects when it...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 00724
While DPSOE was unable to verify the applicants promotion history files (maintained for a period of 10 years), they were able to determine that based on his staff sergeant date of rank and retirement date, he would have been considered for promotion to the grade of TSgt during cycle 87A6 prior to retiring. THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05725
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 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 | CY2006 | BC-2006-01560
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01560 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXX R. COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 NOV 07 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for supplemental promotion to the grade of technical sergeant for cycle 05E6. It is further recommended that he be provided supplemental consideration for...