RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-02527

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect the rank of Airman (Amn) versus Airman Basic (AB) at the time of discharge.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His promotion to Amn was denied without cause.  He did nothing wrong, his performance levels were “average at best,” he always followed orders, did not violate any policies. 

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 9 Sep 81, in the grade of AB.

On 29 Nov 82, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was not recommending him for promotion to the grade of Airman First Class (A1C) during the period of 1 Dec 82 to 1 May 83.  The specific reason for this action was that the applicant was being recommended for discharge for unsatisfactory performance and separation action had been initiated.

On 14 Dec 82, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was recommending his discharge from the Air Force for unsatisfactory performance.  The specific reasons for the action was failure to progress in on-the-job training.  On that same date, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the action, and on 30 Dec 82, he consulted with counsel and waived his right to submit statements in his own behalf.

On 17 Jan 83, the discharge authority approved the commander’s recommendation, directing the applicant be discharged with a general discharge.  At this time, the applicant was in the grade of Amn.

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/Enlisted Promotions makes no recommendation indicating without a DD Form 214, they cannot determine at what rank the applicant was discharged.  However, based on the applicant’s statement and his commander’s 29 Nov 82 memo non-recommending him for promotion to A1C, Enlisted Promotions believe the applicant is mistaken as to which rank he was non-recommended for promotion.

A review of the applicant’s limited record reflects he was promoted to the rank of Airman effective 11 Jun 82, received a referral report for the period 11 Dec 81 thru 19 Nov 82, and on 29 Nov 82 he was non-recommended for promotion to A1C not Amn as the applicant contends.  As there is no DD Form 214 in the applicant’s record, and he did not provide one with his DD Form 149, there is no way of knowing what rank is reflected at the time of separation.

A complete copy of the AFPC/Enlisted Promotions evaluation is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 Mar 16 for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D).  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  After a careful review of the applicant's contentions, documentation submitted in support of the request, and the available evidence of record, we are not convinced the applicant has provided sufficient evidence for us to conclude that he is the victim of an error or injustice.  We also note the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  Therefore, because we do not find it would be in the interest of justice to recommend granting relief, and the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application, we cannot conclude it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file the application.  Accordingly, we find the application untimely.

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-2015-02527 in Executive Session on 13 Oct 16 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				  , Panel Chair
					, Member
					    , Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 Jul 15.
	Exhibit B.  Available Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/Enlisted Promotions, dated 
  7 Mar 16.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Mar 16.

Pursuant to paragraph 1 of AFI 36-2603 (Title 32 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 865.1), it is certified that a quorum was present at the Board's review and deliberations, and that the foregoing is a true and complete record of the Board's proceedings in the above entitled matter.