RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2015-00018 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of colonel (O-6). APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He was denied promotion to colonel (O-6) for reasons unknown to him, but suspected as discriminatory, which are in dire contradiction of his officer performance reports (OPRs) while assigned to Headquarters Air Force. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant initially entered the Regular Air Force on 1 Sep 61. On 4 Jun 64, the applicant was furnished an honorable discharge, and transferred to the Air Force Reserve (RE). From 1 Jan 79 until 31 Dec 83 the applicant was assigned to the Directorate of Plans, DCS/Plans & Operations, HQ USAF, Washington, DC, with the duty title-HAF International Politico-Military Affairs Officer. From 1 Jan 84 until 5 May 85 the applicant was assigned to the 9006 Air Reserve Squadron (ARPC) Lowry AFB, CO, with the duty title-Disaster Preparedness Staff Officer. On 18 Feb 99, the applicant was retired in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5), placed on the Air Force retired list, and was credited with 22 years of service per Title 10 U.S.C. Section 12732. 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: ARPC/PB recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an error or an injustice. The FY85 Line and Non-line Colonel Promotion Selection Board in this matter was held in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. A promotion board is the sole recommending authority, and no feedback is provided by the board explaining why a member is not recommended for selection to the next higher grade. Promotion to the grade of O-6 is an extremely competitive process, and often times the quotas are exhausted before quality records run out. In reviewing officer selection records, promotion board members consider job performance, job responsibility, leadership, specific achievements, decorations, and education. The applicant has not provided any documentation that he was improperly considered, that there was an error in his record, or that a discriminatory injustice occurred, warranting promotion or Special Board consideration. Additionally, 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 AFI, 36-2603, Air Force Board of Correction of Military Records. If the Board should disagree with the recommendation to deny, it could direct a new OPR, highlighting additional accomplishments, and direct a Special Selection Board (SSB) in lieu of the FY85 Line and Non-Line Colonel Promotion Selection Board. However, ARPC/PB will not be able to meet SSB requirements due to the directive benchmark and candidate lists not being available from the original board. A complete copy of the ARPC/PB evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant refutes virtually every point made by the OPR and argues that the OPR did not take into account his complete package submitted with his DD Form 149, and he questions whether or not legal counsel experts in discrimination and/or constitutional law had reviewed the OPR advisory. He contends his case has merits as to justice or the lack of it, which support and justify waiving timeliness of his application. He reiterates his accusation of his supervisor’s discriminatory biased opinion that resulted in his non-selection for promotion to O-6. He states that being a Department of Defense (DoD) contract negotiator, influenced his decision not to “fight the system,” and he deferred addressing this issue until after he was fully disassociated with DoD. He elaborates on his OPR remarks by senior officers regarding his performance, professional qualities, leadership, specific achievements, decorations, and education. He closes his response by stating that he will continue to seek and obtain justice if the AFBCMR denies his requested relief. The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOARD: After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence of record, we find the application untimely. While the applicant claims a date of discovery of less than three years ago, in our view, the reasonable date of discovery of the alleged error or injustice was more than three years ago and the application is therefore 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 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 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-2015-00018 in Executive Session on 12 Aug 15, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence pertaining AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2015-00018 was considered: Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 14, w/atchs. Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C.  Memorandum, ARPC/PB, dated 19 Feb 15. Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 26 Feb 15. Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Mar 15, w/atchs.