RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF: 			DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2014-03168

						COUNSEL:  NONE

						HEARING DESIRED:  YES 


APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His grade of Staff Sergeant (SSgt/E-5), with a Date of Rank of 
1 Jul 72, be restored.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was promoted to the rank of SSgt, within three and half years; 
however, after several run-ins with his squadron commander, he 
lost his position on the flight line and eventually, gave up his 
SSgt rank for an early separation.  

The Board should find it in the interest of justice to consider 
his untimely application because he has wanted to address this 
issue for many years now.

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


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30 Jan 69, the applicant initially entered the Regular Air 
Force for a period of four years.  On 1 Jul 72, he was 
progressively promoted to the grade of SSgt.  On 7 Aug 72, the 
applicant reenlisted in the Regular Air Force.  

On 11 Feb 74, the applicant received an Article 15, for being 
Absent Without Leave (AWOL), on or about 2 – 7 Jan 74.  His 
punishment consisted of a reduction to the grade of sergeant with 
a DOR of 11 Feb 74.  He did not appeal the punishment.

On 17 Jul 74, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, 
and was credited with 5 years, 5 months, and 10 days of active 
service.   


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFLOA/JAJM recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or an injustice in the processing of the Article 15.  

JAJM notes that, in this case, from on or about 2 Jan 74 to on or 
about 7 Jan 74, the applicant was absent without leave.  For the 
alleged wrongdoing, the applicant’s commander offered him 
Nonjudicial Punishment (NJP) on 11 Feb 74.  The NJP paperwork 
indicates the applicant accepted NJP proceedings and submitted a 
written presentation.  On 9 Mar 74, the applicant’s commander 
found that the applicant committed the offense and punished him by 
reducing him to the grade of Sergeant.  The applicant was notified 
of his right to appeal and chose not to appeal. 

In his response to the NJP, the applicant admits to not being at 
work, but states he could not make it back because of bad snow 
storms.  He states that he tried to call his command to let them 
know about his inability to make it back to work.  For similar 
misconduct the applicant had also received prior counseling.  The 
applicant was afforded due process and was given the opportunity 
to submit matters in mitigation, extenuation, or defense.  The 
commander at the time would have been the best person to evaluate 
the evidence and make a decision on the appropriateness of the 
action.  The applicant was given due process and given his 
history, the punishment was not too severe. 

Additionally, the requested relief cannot be accomplished 
administratively.  The application was received approximately 
41 years since the NJP action was completed.  The application is 
untimely.  Moreover, we do not see that it is in the interest of 
justice to consider the application.  The applicant has the burden 
of proof in this case and in our opinion, he has not supported his 
claims with sufficient evidence. 

The complete JAJM evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSOE deferred their recommendation, noting the evaluation 
and recommendation from AFLOA/JAJM is to deny the applicant’s 
request to set aside the Article 15 punishment.  

In addition, DPSOE noted the application was untimely and that he 
has exhausted his administrative remedies.

The complete DPSOE evaluation is at Exhibit D.  


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant refutes the point about being AWOL and argues that 
due to a snowstorm he was not able to return to the base; however, 
he was able to contact someone on the base who agreed to let his 
chain of command know of his whereabouts.

The applicant reiterates his original contentions and truly 
believes had it not been for his squadron commander, he probably 
would have made a career in the Air Force.  His past record of 
achievements was clean and his accomplishments throughout his 
almost six years are well documented.

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


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD:

After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the 
available evidence of record, we find the application untimely.  
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.  The 
applicant has not shown a plausible reason for the delay in 
filing, and we are not persuaded 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-2014-03168 in Executive Session on 7 May 15 under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

	, Panel Chair
	, Member
	, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Aug 14, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Pertinent Excerpts from Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, AFLOA/JAJM, dated 23 Feb 15.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOE, dated 27 Feb 15.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 15.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Mar 15.