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 deceased former service members Airman Performance Report
(APR), rendered for the period 20 Jul 74 through 26 May 75, be
reconsidered for a better rating.
2. The deceased former service members records be corrected to
reflect that he was promoted to technical sergeant (E-6).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her husband should have received a better rating that would have
provided him a better opportunity for promotion to technical
sergeant. The contested APR was completed in haste during a base
closure.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The service member initially entered the Regular Air Force on
4 Apr 55.
On 1 Jun 70, the service member was promoted to the rank of staff
sergeant (E-5).
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.
On 31 Dec 75, the service member was released from active duty,
and retired, effective 1 Jan 76, in the grade of staff sergeant
(E-5). He was credited with 20 years and 19 days of active
service.
?
On 19 May 80, the service member passed away.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
described in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of
primary responsibility (OPR), which are attached at Exhibits
C and D.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends the applicants request be time barred
noting the applicant has not filed her claim within the three-year
time limit. Her request can 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 therefrom. In this case, the applicant waited
37 years after the service members retirement to petition the
Board. Her delay in filing a claim has caused prejudice to the
Air Force as relevant records have been destroyed or are no longer
available, memories have failed and witnesses are unavailable.
In 1970, airmen were considered for promotion under the Weighted
Airman Promotion System (WAPS). WAPS consisted of six weighted
factors (specialty knowledge test (SKT), promotion fitness
evaluation (PFE), evaluation ratings (APRs/EPRs), time in service
(TIS), time in grade (TIG), and decorations). Airman being
considered for promotion to technical sergeant must have had 18
TIG, possess a 7-skill level Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), five
TIS, a current PFE and SKT score, and be recommended by the
promotion authority. These were the minimum eligibility
requirements for consideration for promotion, but in no way
guaranteed a promotion. The combined score of the weighted
factors must be at or above the cutoff score required for each
individuals AFSC in order to be selected for promotion.
Based on the service members date of rank (DOR) to staff
sergeant, he would have been eligible for promotion consideration
to technical sergeant under WAPS cycles 72A6-75B6 (8 cycles)
before his retirement date. Although, the applicant believes her
spouse deserved a better rating on the contested report, it is
noted the service member received the highest possible rating of
9. Promotion history files are only maintained for 10 years and
therefore, the service members promotion score/results cannot be
verified.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
?
AFPC/DPSIDE recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of
an error or injustice. Since the service member received the
highest possible rating on the report in question, there is no
basis to change or modify the performance report.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIDE evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 25 Aug 14 for review and comment within 30 days
(Exhibit E). As of this date, no response has been received by
this office.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:
After careful consideration of applicants request and the
available evidence of record, we find the application untimely.
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. Applicant
has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in filing, and we
are not persuaded that 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-2013-03962 in Executive Session on 2 Oct 14, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
?
The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2013-03962 was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Jul 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Former service members Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 16 Sep 13.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSIDE, undated.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Aug 14.
4
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02228
They also stated his request for promotion to TSgt should be denied based on merit as they found nothing in his record to indicate an error or injustice was made that prevented him from being promoted or considered for promotion. The DPPPWB complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 Aug 06, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00588
To be considered for promotion to E-5 an individual must have had a minimum of 18 months time-in-grade (TIG), a skill level commensurate with their Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC), and be recommended by the commander. To be considered for promotion to TSgt, an individual must have 18 months TIG as a SSgt, possess a 7-skill level, have a current PFE and SKT score, and be recommended by the promotion authority. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02874
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicants military records are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AETC/DPSOE states they are unable to provide test results/score notice for cycle 02E7 as the applicant was never considered for promotion because he did not take the required Specialty Knowledge Test...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 03542
He should receive supplemental promotion consideration to the grade of MSgt based on the correction to his records. 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. 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...
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 | 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 | CY2011 | BC-2011-02569
DPSOE states members cannot test in an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) for which they are no longer assigned. After returning from deployment, the applicant was scheduled and tested PFE only on 24 Feb 10 for cycle 10E6 in CAFSC 3D1X2 based on the AFSC conversion. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis...
AF | BCMR | CY2014 | BC 2014 03124
He was not given his Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) study material in a timely manner to prepare for his promotion test. The Promotion Eligibility Cut-Off Date (PECD) for promotion cycle 13E5 was 31 Mar 13. We took notice of the applicants complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02572
He may have been denied promotion because he was not assigned to an Air Force billet during the time he was sheep dipped and his records were maintained by intelligence agencies outside of the Air Force. On 26 Oct 10, AFPC/DPSIDR notified the applicant of his entitlement to the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Three Bronze Oak Leaf Clusters (AFOUA w/3BOLC), the Korean Defense Service Medal (KDSM), and the Non-Commissioned Officer Professional Education Graduate Ribbon (NCOPMEGR) The...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 02579
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the Air Force offices of primary responsibility, which are attached at Exhibits C, D, G and H. ________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSIM recommends the applicants request to have his leave restored be granted. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSIM evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPSOE recommends denial of the applicants request...