RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-04989

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect that he retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O5).  


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
	
He served more than enough time to qualify as a lieutenant colonel.  He immediately inquired about not being retired in a higher rank and was informed by 
letter that the rank increase were being saved for younger officers.  It was in his error that he did not maintain the letter.  He was stunned about not 
attaining the rank of lieutenant colonel because he thought all majors who had served their time and more, by rules, regulations, and protocol were given 
the higher rank, even before retirement.  Furthermore, he had no noted knowledge of poor efficiency reports or activities unbecoming of an officer.  This 
incident has disturbed him until his current age of 89.  

While awaiting the attainment of retirement he ran a successful masonry firm.  He now only wants to receive the higher rank and not interested in any back 
pay, filing a claim for discrimination, prejudice, or malfeasance in office.  

He was later informed by a friend that he did not receive the rating of lieutenant colonel due to his involvement in a fueling incident on base.  If there 
is a valid reason he was not given the increase, he need to see it in writing or know who prevented him from receiving the increase in rank.  

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 December 1972, the applicant was relieved from his current assignment in the grade of major and transferred to the retired reserve, effective 
19 December 1972; to await reserve retired pay at age 60.  

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:

ARPC/PB recommends denial.  The ability or resources to research or validate the applicant’s claim cannot be accomplished due to the substantial amount of 
time that has passed.  Also, the applicant has not provided any evidence which would allow for his claim to be substantiated.  However, the applicant can 
pursue promotion opportunities as outlined in Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 1563, which allows for an honorary promotion, but the request 
must come from a member of Congress through the appropriate service Secretary concerned.  

A complete copy of the ARPC/PB evaluation is at Exhibit C.


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant stated his actual service was from May 1943 to 1972, at which time he retired from the Reserves.  In addition, he has a letter of recognition 
of his service in World War II.  As such, he has served the time which qualifies him for retirement in the grade of lieutenant colonel and he expected a 
lieutenant colonel rating when he retired in 1972.  He was not pleased with the response he received regarding his promotion; however, at the time his focus
 was on a pending lawsuit.  It was not until years later when he was writing about his military history that he remembered the letter he received regarding 
promoting only the young officers and him initiating the process to receive the rating of lieutenant colonel.  

He never had problems in his military or civilian career.  He is deserving of being awarded the grade of lieutenant colonel and will be contacting senators 
to satisfy the requirement of 10 U.S.C. § 1563.  

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.


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-2014-04989 in Executive Session on 20 August 2015 and 27 November 2015 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	Chair
	Member
	Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 December 2014, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/PB, dated 24 March 2015.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 April 2015.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 April 2015 and 16 October 2015.
1 2