RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01007
		INDEX CODE:  131.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Promotion to the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with an effective date of rank of 1 Nov 67 (the date he entered retired Reserve status), and retirement in the grade of E-7, with a waiver of the two-year Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC), if applicable.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When promotions to E-7 were published on 1 Dec 54, his name was not on the Special Orders.  There was just one Personnel Technician promoted that cycle at Eielson AFB, AK, and that was an individual who was not even working in his Primary or Control Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 73270.  He was the ranking E-6 in the 73270 career field and more qualified, but was not promoted because of politics.

In support of his request, the applicant submits a personal statement and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 31 Oct 67, the applicant was relieved from active duty in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6).  He retired from active duty on 1 Nov 67 and was assigned to the retired Reserve.  He had completed a total of 20 years and 16 days of active service for retirement.  On 14 Oct 77, the applicant was relieved from his retired Reserve assignment and honorably discharged in the grade of E-6, USAFR.

In 1971, the applicant applied to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) requesting that his retirement for length of service be changed to a disability retirement.  His application was denied by the Board on 15 Oct 71.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPP stated that the applicant had continuous active duty in the Air Force from 30 Aug 51 through 31 Oct 67.  He was promoted to staff sergeant (E-5) on 1 Jul 53 and to technical sergeant (E-6) on 1 Dec 61.

DPPP indicated that promotions during the time frame the applicant states he should have been promoted, 1 Dec 64, were made at the Major Command, unless delegated by the Major Command to the Wing, Group or Squadron levels.  HQ USAF distributed promotions quotas to the Major Commands based on projected vacancies within each career field subdivision.  To be considered for promotion to E-7, an individual must have 24 months time-in-grade (TIG) by the anticipated promotion date, possess a 7-Skill Level Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) and be recommended by the commander.  These were the minimum eligibility requirements to be considered by the promotion board, but in no way ensured or guaranteed a promotion.

DPPP stated that the applicant’s record is of distinction and appears worthy of promotion.  However, the number of individuals that could be promoted, when the applicant was competing, was determined by projected vacancies.  The applicant has provided a Special Order that assigns the other E-6 (the one who was subsequently promoted) to the duty of Personnel Sergeant Major, effective 1 Aug 64, with no change in Duty AFSC.  DPPP stated that it would seem unlikely an E-6 should have been assigned this duty title, which could imply someone was attempting to “game” the system.  The applicant also provided an order, dated 4 Feb 66, that shows this individual’s grade as E-7, which indicates he was promoted either 1 Dec 64 or 1 Dec 65.  DPPP is not in a position, after 37 years, to either confirm or deny the applicant’s allegation that he, not the other individual, should have been promoted, and whether the selection of the other individual was or was not, “above board.”  DPPP defers to the decision of the Board.

The HQ AFPC/DPPP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 26 April 2002 for review and response.  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.  The application was not timely filed.

3.	The application was not filed within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or reasonably could have been discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36‑2603.  Although the applicant asserts a date of discovery which would, if correct, make the application timely, the essential facts which gave rise to the application were known to applicant long before the asserted date of discovery.  Knowledge of those facts constituted the date of discovery and the beginning of the three-year period for filing.  Thus, the application is untimely.

4.  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.  Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the untimely filing of the application.

_________________________________________________________________

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 this application in Executive Session on 15 August 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number 02-01007.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Mar 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 11 Apr 02, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Apr 02.