RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2016-03378

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE

	HEARING: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, dated 30 Sep 81, be corrected to reflect he retired in the grade of colonel (O-6).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Special Order AB-187, dated 26 Jan 77, promoted him as a Reserve of the Air Force to the grade of O-6.  Special Orders No. AC-019986, dated 12 Dec 80, retired him in the grade of O-6.  

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel (O-5).  For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C, E, and F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPTS recommends denying the application.  AFI 36-3202, Separation Documents, Table 4, Rule 4, specifies the grade in block 4a of a DD Form 214 is the “Active duty grade held at separation.”  Per the applicant’s promotion order dated 26 Jan 77, promoting him to the ResAF grade of colonel, “Officer will continue to serve in temporary appointment and will not perform duties in the ResAF grade, unless ordered to active duty in such grade by competent authority.”  The applicant was a O-5 at the time of his retirement and his record still reflects that.  Even though there is a promotion order reflecting he was promoted to a O-6, there is no documentation to show he ever served at that rank during his time in the Air Force.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent a copy of the Air Force evaluation to the applicant on 11 Jun 18 for comment (Exhibit D), but has received no response.

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SP provides an advisory for informational purposes only.  First, the application was not filed within three years of the discovery of the alleged error or injustice, or with due diligence, should have been discovered.  The applicant was a Reserve officer serving on active duty.  He held the active duty grade of lieutenant colonel with a date of rank (DOR) of 6 Mar 73.  He was promoted as a Reserve of the AF to the Permanent grade of colonel under 10 U.S.C. 8371 and 593 effective 26 Jan 77.  There is evidence that the applicant met numerous Temporary/Active Duty Colonel promotion boards while on active duty, but there is no evidence that he was selected for temporary promotion to colonel.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.
 
AFPC/DP2STM provides an advisory for informational purposes only.  The applicant’s retirement order reflects he was an O-5 at the time of retirement.  Based on documentation provided by the applicant, and an analysis of the facts, there is no evidence of an error or injustice.  The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.  

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 22 Aug 18 for comment (Exhibit G), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of ARPC/DPTS and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The applicant was a O-5 at the time of his retirement and his record still reflects that.  Even though there is a promotion order reflecting he was promoted to a O-6, there is no documentation to show he ever served at that rank during his time in the Air Force.  The Board also notes 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, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery less than three years before the Board’s receipt of the application, the Board does not find the assertion reasonable.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2016-03378 in Executive Session on 16 Oct 18:

, Panel Chair 
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted not to correct the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 16 Aug 16.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, ARPC/DPTS, dated 2 May 17.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 11 Jun 18.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SP, dated 17 Jul 18.
Exhibit F:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 19 Jul 18. 
Exhibit G:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 22 Aug 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9, pertaining to . Docket Number BC-2016-03378.