RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-00065 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her rank of E-3, airman first class be corrected to reflect E-4, sergeant. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was discharged erroneously under the rank of E-3, airman first class. She has tried to correct the record for several years. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 21 January 1972. She was promoted to the grade of E-3, airman first class on 6 December 1972. She was honorably discharged on 13 May 1974 in the grade of airman first class. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOE recommends the application be time barred. The application was not filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records. In addition to the application being untimely under the statute of limitations, the 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 this case, the applicant waited 40 years after discharge to petition the Board. The applicant’s unreasonable delay has also caused prejudice to the Air Force as relevant records have been destroyed or no longer available, memories have failed and witnesses are unavailable. A review of the applicant’s record reveals no orders promoting her to the grade of sergeant. Although the applicant provides a print-out that reflects the applicant’s rank as sergeant, it appears to be typographical error. An initiation of discharge letter, dated 18 March 1974 states that her supervisor recommended that she not be promoted until completion of 5-skill level. Her request and authorization for separation form dated 13 May 1974, reflects skill level of “3” as does the Officer/Separation Record printout dated 2 June 1974. The applicant’s request should be time barred. Should the Board decide the case, the request should be denied as she was ineligible for promotion due to her commander’s recommendation. The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluations was forwarded to the applicant on 12 September 2014, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit D). As of this date, this office has received no response. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The application was not filed within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or could have been discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (10 USC 1552), and Air Force Instruction 36-2603. The applicant asserts a date of discovery which would which gave rise to the application; these assertions were known, according to the applicant as early as May 1974: Thus the application is untimely. We have considered the applicant’s contention that she was erroneously discharged in the grade of E-3; however we do not find she has provided evidence that the rank/grade as listed on her DD Form 214 is incorrectly recorded. 2. Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552 permits us, in our discretion, to excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. We have carefully reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record, and we do not find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing of this application. The applicant has not shown a plausible reason for delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record raises issues of error or injustice that require resolution on the merits at this time. Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the untimely filing of the application. ________________________________________________________________ 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2014-00065 in Executive Session on 18 November 2014, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Dec 13, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Record Excerpts. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 10 Mar 14. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Sep 14.