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 member’s 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 member’s 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 applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 member’s 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 
individual’s AFSC in order to be selected for promotion.

Based on the service member’s 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 member’s 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 applicant’s 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 
applicant’s 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 member’s 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
5