RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-01137
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His grade of Sergeant (Sgt/E-4) be changed to Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After his discharge, he was retroactively awarded two decorations which would have resulted in his having been promoted to E-5 before his discharge had they been awarded on time. After his 6 Nov 70 discharge, he was awarded the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) on 6 Jul 09 and the Purple Heart (PH) Medal on 15 Jan 10. The PH was worth 5 points toward promotion and the AFCM was worth 3 points toward promotion. He was promoted to E-4 on 1 Jan 69. These additional points combined with his outstanding enlisted performance reports (EPR) would have resulted in his being promoted to E-5 before his discharge.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 8 Nov 66.
On 1 Jan 69, the applicant was promoted to the grade of E-4.
On 6 Nov 70, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge in the grade of E-4, and was credited with 3 years, 11 months, and 29 days of active service.
On 6 Jul 09, the applicant was awarded the AFCM for meritorious service on 20 Mar 69.
On 15 Jan 10, the applicant was awarded the PH for wounds received in action on 20 Mar 69.
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. Beginning in 1970, airmen were considered for promotion under the Weighted Airman Performance System (WAPS). To be considered for promotion to SSgt, an individual must have 12-months time-in-grade, possess a skill level commensurate with their Air Force Special Code (AFSC), have a current Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) and Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) scores, and be recommended by the promotion authority. These were the minimum eligibility requirements to be considered for promotion, but in no way guaranteed promotion. WAPS is composed of six weighted factors (SKT, PFE, EPRs, time-in-grade, time-in-service, and decorations). The combined score of these weighted factors must be at or above the cutoff score required for each individuals AFSC in order to be selected for promotion.
Based upon the applicants 1 Jan 69 date for rank to Sgt, he would have been eligible for promotion consideration to SSgt under the WAPS beginning with promotion cycle 71A5. However, in accordance with AFMAN 37-139, Records Disposition Schedule, Table 36-22, Rule 29, promotion history files are only maintained for a period of 10 years. Due to the passage of time, it is not possible to verify whether the applicant was considered for promotion to SSgt, or if the addition of the PH and AFCM would have rendered him a selectee. The applicants request concerns a matter dating back almost 44 years. Recommend the request be time barred due to the lack of official documentation.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
He believes that even though his request is 44 years old, it has merit. 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 should be waived. He reiterates that his EPRs at the time were outstanding (Exhibit E).
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. While the applicant contends that the decision to award him the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) and Purple Heart (PH) Medal in 2009 and 2010, respectively, should somehow cause this Board to waive timeliness, we note that the corrections to his record giving rise to the instant request were also more than three years ago. 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-2014-01137 in Executive Session on 19 Feb 14 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jan 14, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 14 Apr 14.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jul 14.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Aug 14.
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-2011-02569
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 | 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-2006-02228
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 | 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 | 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...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The applicant is requesting award of the Air Force “Accommendation Award” (Air Force Commendation Medal) for the period of 196 1 - 1964 and 197 1 - 1973. The applicant has provided a score notice for the 72A7 promotion cycle (promotions for this cycle was normally exceeding Aug 71 - Jan 72 but were carried over to Jul 72) reflecting...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00938
The Air Force should have made the decision of changing this policy to be effective for future recruiting goals in the recruiting career field and provided a definitive date of implementation rather than affecting personnel currently serving in that duty. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case and do not find that it supports a determination that he be awarded two WAPS points for his Air Force Recruiting ribbon. ...
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 | CY2007 | BC-2007-02326
Current Air Force promotion policy, AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion Program, Table 2.2, Rule 5, Note 2, {sic – should be Rule 7} dictates that before a decoration is credited for a specific promotion cycle, the close-out date of the decoration must be on or before the PECD, and the date of the DÉCOR-6, Request for Decoration Printout (RDP), must be before the date of selections for the cycle in question. Although the Board is sympathetic to the applicant’s near-miss for promotion, evidence...