RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02526
INDEX CODE: 131.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect his rank as Staff Sergeant (SSgt)
vice Sergeant (Sgt).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He completed Flight Engineer School; therefore, his rank should be
SSgt.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is attached at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared by
the appropriate office of the Air Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPWB states the applicant has not filed his claim a within the
3-year time limit. The applicant's request can 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 therefrom. In the applicant's case, he waited over 56
years after his discharge to file a claim. The applicant does not
indicate when he discovered the alleged error nor does he offer any
explanation in the delay to file a claim. The applicant's delay in
filing a claim has caused prejudice to the Air Force. The applicant's
delay regarding his promotion has complicated the Air Force's ability
to determine the merits of his position. DPPPWB further states
the Air Force, after 56 years and limited records, cannot determine if
the applicant should have been promoted. They must assume that his
supervisors and commanding officers at the time were in a better
position to determine the applicant's promotion eligibility. Based on
the passage of time, relevant records have been destroyed or are no
longer available, memories have failed and witnesses are unavailable,
they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
30 August 2002, for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant’s complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Due to
limited records and the passage of time we are unable to determine if
the applicant should have received a promotion based on completing
Flight Engineer School. In this respect, the Board believes the
applicant's chain of command was in the best position to determine his
promotion eligibility. We believe it should be pointed out that the
applicant may have been deserving of a promotion but in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the Board must assume the applicant was
discharged in the appropriate grade. In view of the foregoing and in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the
application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly
discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered Docket Number 02-
02526 in Executive Session on 1 October 2002, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. James E. Short, Member
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 5 Aug 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 Aug 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 30 Aug 02.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
DPPPWB further states the Air Force, after 56 years and limited records, cannot determine if the applicant should have been promoted earlier than he was. Therefore based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit D). He further states that he was promoted at the time of his discharge and the promotion was not affiliated with his flying years, the practice at that time was to promote each enlisted man one grade at time of discharge (Exhibit F).
DPPPWB further states the Air Force, after 56 years and limited records, can not determine if the applicant should have received a promotion prior to his separation from the service. Therefore, based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit D). We believe it should be pointed out that the applicant may have been deserving of a promotion but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board must assume the applicant was discharged in the...
Promotion boards selected individuals and the quotas received determined the number that could be promoted. They recommend the applicant's request be time barred or denied on its merits (Exhibit C). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6 September 2002, for review and response.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03059
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2003-03059 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to change his rank from Private First Class (PFC) to Sergeant Tech 4th Grade (T/4 Sgt) on his DD Form 214, Report of Separation. The applicant's delay in filing a claim has caused prejudice to the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02228
They also stated his request for promotion to TSgt should be denied based on merit as they found nothing in his record to indicate an error or injustice was made that prevented him from being promoted or considered for promotion. The DPPPWB complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 18 Aug 06, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and comment...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02923
In the applicant’s case, he waited 49 years before he petitioned the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR). They have reviewed the extremely limited records (records destroyed in 1973 at NPRC) on the applicant and find no documentation regarding a promotion to SSgt or any other enlisted grade. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02923 in Executive Session on 17 December...
He was medically cleared on 7 Aug 00 and enlisted in the RegAF on 5 Sep 00 in the grade of SSgt (E-5) with a DOR of 5 Sep 00. The applicant’s enlistment was processed in a timely manner and his DOR correctly established to equal his 5 Sep 00 enlistment date. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02397
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02397 INDEX CODE: 107.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect he received a promotion to technical sergeant (TSgt) while he was a Prisoner of War (POW). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01507
In support of his request, the applicant provided a statement in his own behalf. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered the active duty Air Force on 14 Jul 52 and was progressively promoted to the grade of staff sergeant (SSgt). The application has not been filed within the three-year time limitation imposed by AFI 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records, paragraph 3-5.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The applicant is requesting he be promoted to A3C (E-2) earlier than 1 Feb 55, the date he was promoted. The applicant enlisted 25 Aug 53 in the grade of Airman Basic (E-l), was promoted to A3C (E-2) 1 Feb 55, promoted to A2C (E-3) 1 Jun 56, promoted to A1C (E-4) 1 Sep 59 (A1C (E-4) redesignated Sgt (Ed)), and to SSgt (E-5) 1 Dec 68.