Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02923
Original file (BC-2002-02923.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02923
            INDEX CODE: 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His rank on his DD Form 214, Report of Separation, be  changed  from  Airman
Third Class to either Staff Sergeant or Technical Sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was reduced in rank on the eve of his promotion  to  technical  sergeant.
He contends his commanding officer indicated that he would  be  returned  to
the grade of staff sergeant as soon as possible.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided  a  letter  to  Congressman
Crane, dated 6 August 2002 and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire  in  1973,  at
the  National  Personnel  Records  Center  (NPRC).   Therefore,  the   facts
surrounding his alleged reduction in grade  and  any  promotions  cannot  be
verified.

Records provided by the applicant indicate that he enlisted in  the  Regular
Air Force on 11 September 1947 and was honorably  discharged  on  4  January
1951, in the grade of sergeant, in accordance with AFR 39-14 (To  Reenlist).
He served a total of 3 years, 3 months, and 24 days.

On 5 January 1951, applicant reenlisted for a period of  3  years.   He  was
honorably discharged on 23 October 1953, in the grade of airman third  class
(effective 14 November 1952), in accordance with AFR 39-14  (Convenience  of
the Government). He served a total of 2 years, 9 months,  and  12 days  this
enlistment.  His Total Air Force Military Service (TAFMS)  was  6  years,  1
month, and 6 days.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB recommended denial.  They indicated  that  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,  1
March  1996.   In  addition  to  being  untimely  under   the   statute   of
limitations, the  applicant’s  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  the  applicant’s  case,  he  waited  49 years  before  he
petitioned the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records  (AFBCMR).
 Applicant’s unreasonable delay has also caused prejudice to the  Air  Force
as relevant  records  have  been  destroyed  or  are  no  longer  available,
memories have failed, and witnesses are unavailable.

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.  Again, the applicant states  that  his
commanding officer would see to it that he be returned to  his  former  rank
as soon as possible.  However,  the  applicant’s  DD  Form  214,  Report  of
Separation – Honorable Discharge, shows his  grade  as  airman  third  class
when  he  was  discharged  23  October  1953.   In  the   absence   of   any
documentation  to  the  contrary,  they  must  assume  the   applicant   was
discharged in the correct grade.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 8 November 2002, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the
applicant for review and response within  thirty  (30)  days.   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 an error or an injustice.  We took notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging  the  merits  of  the  case.   After  careful
consideration of applicant’s request and the available evidence  of  record,
we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice  to  warrant  corrective
action with respect to his request.  The facts and opinions  stated  in  the
advisory opinion appear to be based on the available evidence of record  and
have not been rebutted by  applicant.   The  applicant’s  personnel  records
appear to have been  destroyed  by  fire  and  we  do  not  know  the  facts
surrounding his alleged reduction in grade  and  any  promotions  cannot  be
verified.  Therefore, 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 AFBCMR Docket Number  02-02923
in Executive Session on 17 December 2002, under  the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
                  Mr. Charlie E. Williams, Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 October 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 22 October 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 November 2002.




                                PEGGY E. GORDON
                                Panel Chair




Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03059

    Original file (BC-2003-03059.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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-2006-00929

    Original file (BC-2006-00929.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his request, the applicant provided a personal letter, a copy of his DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, and a copy of his orders for gunnery school. As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit E). 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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02228

    Original file (BC-2006-02228.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | 0202508

    Original file (0202508.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 0202526

    Original file (0202526.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's delay in filing a claim has caused prejudice to the Air Force. DPPPWB further states the Air Force, after 56 years and limited records, cannot determine if the applicant should have been promoted. 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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0101982

    Original file (0101982.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior to the events under review, the applicant was progressively promoted to the grade of airman first class (E-4) on 1 August 1953 and thereafter to the grade of staff sergeant (E-5), effective and with a date of rank of 1 October 1955. The board’s recommendations were approved and on 21 October 1957, orders were issued announcing the applicant’s demotion to the grade of airman first class (E-3) with a date of rank of 1 August 1953. Although the applicant claims the demotion was...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01397

    Original file (BC-2007-01397.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He served 23 years of continuous active duty service during which time he received only one senior noncommissioned officer promotion (SNCO) to master sergeant (MSgt). The remaining 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 at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103514

    Original file (0103514.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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).

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01507

    Original file (BC-2007-01507.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02783

    Original file (BC-2011-02783.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02783 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His WD AGO Form 53, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, Honorable Discharge, be corrected to reflect he was discharged from the Air Force versus the Army in the rank of staff sergeant (SSG) rather than sergeant (Sgt). ...