RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04376 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His rank at the time of his discharge be corrected to reflect (E-7) master sergeant versus (E-6) technical sergeant. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was denied promotion due to the promotion system in affect at the time. His performance was satisfactory and his rating official at times was not his supervisor. The injustice occurred when he was relieved from his First Sergeant duties to create a vacancy for returning personnel from overseas assignments who outranked him, and then assigning him to duties in a frozen career field with no hope for promotion. In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of United States Report of Transfer or Discharge, Retirement Order, a letter to the Department of Personnel, United States Air Force, and a letter from his Congressman. The applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty in the Air Force on 3 Sep 47. He was promoted to airman first class effective 15 Apr 49, to staff sergeant on 13 Feb 52, and technical sergeant on 1 Oct 54. His DD Form 214 reflects he was honorably retired in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6) effective 30 Sep 67, after serving 20 years and 28 days on active duty. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be time barred; however, should the Board decide the case that it be denied based on lack of official documentation. DPSOE states the applicant’s case has not been filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. In addition to being untimely under the statute of limitations, the applicant’s request may 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 there from. In the applicant’s case, he waited more than 43 years after his retirement before he petition the AFBCMR. DPSOE states they were unable to verify whether the applicant was considered for promotion to master sergeant, as promotion history files are only maintained for a period of 10 years as outlined in AFR 4-20, Table 35-12, Rule 29, “Records Disposition Schedule.” Ten years is generally considered an adequate period to resolve any promotion inquiries or concerns. Promotions during the timeframe the applicant is requesting promotion were made at the Major Command, unless delegated by the Major Command to the Wing, Group, of Squadron levels. HQ USAF distributed promotion quotas to the Major Commands based on projected vacancies within each Career Field Subdivision. Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. Some career fields received more promotions than others based on vacancies and the needs of the Air Force. Basic eligibility requirements such as time in grade, skill level, and recommendation by the commander were necessary for consideration, but in no way guaranteed promotion. DPSOA found no documentation (nomination list or orders) promoting the applicant to the grade of master sergeant. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: He has no further comments to make except that he realizes his request is way overdue for consideration, but what he stated in his original correspondence is the true facts of what happened during his 20 plus years in the Air Force. His reason for submitting his request is he had a friend who mentioned he too had problems with reporting officials who were not directly his supervisor. He would like to wear the E-7 rank and not receive any back pay. He does not want the Government to be assessed for back pay. He is not looking for any monetary remuneration. The question is “why was he not promoted,” was the system in place at the time of his retirement a fair and equitable one, compared to the system in place today? The applicant's complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: 1. We have carefully reviewed the applicant’s submission and the evidence of record and do not find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of this application. The 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, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. The 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 untimely filing of this application. 2. The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will materially add to our understanding of the issue involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. _________________________________________________________________ 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 BC-2010-04376 in Executive Session on 23 Aug 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining to Docket Number Bc-2010-04376 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Nov 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 28 Dec 11. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 Jan 11. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Feb 11.