RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03426
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  7 MAY 2006


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Earlier promotion to staff sergeant (E-5) and subsequent promotion  to
technical sergeant (E-6).

The applicant’s request for award of the Prisoner of War  (POW)  medal
has been administratively corrected; therefore,  no  Board  action  is
required on this issue.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Based on his crew status, he should have been an E-5 and then promoted
to E-6 instead of E-5 when released from prison camp.

In support of his request, the applicant submits copies of his WD  AGO
Form 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation,  and  additional
documents associated with the issues cited in  his  contentions.   The
applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel records were destroyed by fire in 1973.

Information extracted from applicant’s submission reveals  he  entered
active duty in the United States Army Air Corps  on  13 January  1943.
The  Army  Repatriation  and  Family  Affairs  Division  verified  the
applicant was a POW from 22 March 1944 to 2 May 1945.  At the time  of
capture, he held the grade  of  sergeant  (E-4).   The  applicant  was
subsequently promoted to the grade of staff  sergeant  (E-5).   On  15
November 1945, he was honorably  discharged  in  the  grade  of  staff
sergeant (E-5) under the provisions  of  AR  615-365  (convenience  of
government) and WD Ltr WD CAP 220.8, dated 22 September  1945,  Change
of Surplus Enlisted  Personnel  in  the  Zone  of  Interior.   He  had
completed a total of 1 year, 5  months  and  16  days  of  continental
service and 1 year, 4 months and 24 days of  foreign  service  at  the
time of discharge.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPWB recommends the application be  denied.   DPPPWB  states
the applicant waited more than 59 years after  discharge  to  petition
the Board.  His unreasonable delay has caused  prejudice  to  the  Air
Force as relevant  records  have  been  destroyed  or  are  no  longer
available, memories have failed and witnesses  are  unavailable.   The
applicant provides a missing aircrew report which lists members of his
crew, their positions and ranks.  Other than the  officers,  only  one
member/position held the rank of  staff  sergeant  (E-5).   Therefore,
applicant’s claim that the rest  of  his  flight  crew  were  E-5s  is
incorrect.   DPPPWB  reviewed  the  limited  records  and   found   no
documentation  concerning  promotions  to  any  rank.   Based  on  the
extremely limited records and the passage of time, it is not  possible
for DPPPWB to determine if earlier promotion to E-5  was  appropriate.
While the applicant may have  been  deserving  of  promotion,  in  the
absence of documentation to the contrary, DPPPWB must  assume  he  was
discharged in the proper grade of E-5.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPWB  evaluation
is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  applicant  on  11
March 2005 for review and response.  As of this date, no response  has
been received by this office (Exhibit C).
_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice concerning the promotion  request.
The applicant’s contentions are duly noted, however, he has  submitted
no evidence to support these contentions.  Therefore,  we  agree  with
the opinion and recommendation of the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for  our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden  that  he
has suffered either an error or an injustice.  In order to be eligible
for a POW promotion, recovered personnel must have  been  absent  from
military control under honorable conditions for 18  months  or  longer
and have not yet received  a  one  grade  promotion  since  return  to
military control.  It has been verified the applicant was  a  Prisoner
of War for approximately 13 months; as a result, he did not  meet  the
prerequisites for promotion as a Prisoner  of  War.   The  applicant’s
Enlisted Record and Report of Separation reflects he was discharged in
the  grade  of  staff   sergeant.    Unfortunately,   there   was   no
documentation in his records to indicate when he was promoted to staff
sergeant.  Therefore, based upon the presumption of regularity in  the
conduct of governmental affairs and without evidence to the  contrary,
we must assume that the applicant’s promotion to  staff  sergeant  was
proper and in compliance with appropriate  directives.   The  personal
sacrifice the applicant endured for  his  country  is  noted  and  our
decision should in no way lessen his service.  However, based  on  the
above and absent sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no 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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 June 2005, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                  Ms. Cathlynn B. Sparks, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
                  Mr. Garry G. Sauner, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-03426.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Oct 04, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 16 Feb 05.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 05.




                                   CATHLYNN B. SPARKS
                                   Panel Chair