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.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was discharged erroneously under the rank of E-3, airman
first class. She has tried to correct the record for several
years.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 January
1972. She was promoted to the grade of E-3, airman first class
on 6 December 1972. She was honorably discharged on 13 May 1974
in the grade of airman first class.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be time barred. The
application was not filed within the three-year time limitation
imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of
Military Records. In addition to the application being untimely
under the statute of limitations, the 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 this case, the applicant waited 40 years after
discharge to petition the Board. The applicants unreasonable
delay has also caused prejudice to the Air Force as relevant
records have been destroyed or no longer available, memories
have failed and witnesses are unavailable.
A review of the applicants record reveals no orders promoting
her to the grade of sergeant. Although the applicant provides a
print-out that reflects the applicants rank as sergeant, it
appears to be typographical error. An initiation of discharge
letter, dated 18 March 1974 states that her supervisor
recommended that she not be promoted until completion of 5-skill
level. Her request and authorization for separation form dated
13 May 1974, reflects skill level of 3 as does the
Officer/Separation Record printout dated 2 June 1974.
The applicants request should be time barred. Should the Board
decide the case, the request should be denied as she was
ineligible for promotion due to her commanders recommendation.
The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluations was forwarded to the
applicant on 12 September 2014, for review and comment within
30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received
no response.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The application was not filed within three years after the
alleged error or injustice was discovered, or could have been
discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States
Code (10 USC 1552), and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. The
applicant asserts a date of discovery which would which gave
rise to the application; these assertions were known, according
to the applicant as early as May 1974: Thus the application is
untimely. We have considered the applicants contention that
she was erroneously discharged in the grade of E-3; however we
do not find she has provided evidence that the rank/grade as
listed on her DD Form 214 is incorrectly recorded.
2. Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552 permits us, in our discretion, to
excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. We have
carefully reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record,
and we do not find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely
filing of this application. 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 the merits at this time. Accordingly, we conclude
that it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the
untimely filing of the application.
________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket
Number BC-2014-00065 in Executive Session on 18 November 2014,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 13, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicants Master Personnel Record Excerpts.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 Mar 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Sep 14.
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 | 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-2012-01359
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). 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 02400
During this time, he received an evaluation that would determine his promotion. In the interest of justice, the applicant requests the Board consider the application. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 5 Jul 2013, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days.
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-01915
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-01915 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her fathers records reflect that he was promoted to the grade of Chief Master Sergeant (CMSgt). The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
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 | 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 | 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...