RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02019
		INDEX CODE:  131.10
		COUNSEL: NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be retroactively promoted to the grade of E-9.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In October 1957, he received permanent change of station (PCS) orders from Andersen AFB Guam to Hunter AFB.  When he was outprocessing, he was told that under a new policy he had to hand-carry his personnel file to his new duty location.  He was provided his promotion folder to hand-carry to Hunter AFB.  In November 1957, he was told, by word of mouth, that his base commander had received a message from personnel at Andersen AFB stating that he had been instructed not to hand-carry his promotion folder to Hunter AFB, and that he disobeyed that order.  He was told by personnel at SAC headquarters that this was the reason that he was denied promotion to E-9 seven times.  Based on the recommendations of his supervisors contained in his performance reports, he should have been promoted to E-9.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, his statement of service, a copy of his retirement order; a copy of his WD Form 53, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, Honorable Discharge; copies of his DD Fms 214, Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States; and, copies of his performance reports rendered during the period 24 May 59 through 5 Oct 61.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant contracted his initial enlistment in the Regular Air Force on 15 Jan 38.  He was progressively promoted to the grade of senior master sergeant, having assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Mar 59.  He retired from the Air Force on 31 Jan 63.  He served 24 years, 4 months, and 18 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB, reviewed applicant's request and recommends that the application be time barred.  Should the Board decide to consider the case on its merits, denial is recommended.  DPPPWB states that promotions during the timeframe the applicant is requesting promotion were made at the Major Command unless delegated to the wing, group, or squadron level.  Promotion boards selected the individuals and quotas received determined the number that could be promoted.  To be considered for promotion to E-9, an individual must have met the time-in-grade requirements, possessed the appropriate skill level, and have been recommended by the commander.  Having met the minimum eligibility requirements to be considered by the promotion board in no way ensured or guaranteed a promotion.  Nothing in the applicant's records indicated that an error or injustice was made which prevented his promotion.  The DPPPWB evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant's response to the Air Force evaluation is appended at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  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.  Although the applicant asserts a date of discovery which would, if applicable, make the application timely, the essential facts which give rise to the application were known to the 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.  

3.  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 its merits.  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 Docket Number 02-02019 in Executive Session on 2 Oct 02, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Jul 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Jul 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Aug 02

                                   Vice Chair