RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2017-02333

	COUNSEL: NONE	

	HEARING: YES	

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His NGB Form 22, Departments of the Army and the Air Force National Guard Bureau Report of Separation and Record of Service, issued in conjunction with his 28 Oct 77 discharge, be corrected to reflect his grade as chief warrant officer (CW2), instead of staff sergeant (SSgt).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Although the Air Force quit the warrant officer (WO) program in 1964, there were several thousand WO’s still on active duty.  The Hawaii Air National Guard told him they would bring him in at the highest enlisted rank held and then promote him back to warrant officer status.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former Air Force staff sergeant.  

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

NGB/A1PP recommends denying the application.  There was no policy in place at the time of applicant’s enlistment that would have allowed him to serve in the Air National Guard as a warrant officer.  If the applicant wished to retain this rank throughout his entire career, he would have needed to select a branch of service that had a warrant officer program.  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 17 May 18 for comment (Exhibit D), 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 or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of NGB/A1PP and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  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).  Moreover, the applicant has offered no plausible reason for the delay in filing the application.  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.

4.  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 the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

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.

The application was adjudicated without a personal appearance.

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-2017-02333 in Executive Session on 20 Jun 18:

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

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 7 May 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, NGB/A1PP, dated 15 May 18.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 17 May 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 for Docket Number BC-2017-02333.