RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:            DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2008-01797
                             INDEX CODE:  111.01
XXXXXXX                      COUNSEL:  VSO
                                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show  that  he  was  promoted  to  the  rank  of
captain.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

By tradition, his  role  as  group  navigator  on  various  combat  missions
leading up to Victory  in  Europe  (VE)  Day  would  have  resulted  in  his
promotion to captain.  VE Day occurred on 8 May 1945 and on 16 May 1945  his
group was ordered to prepare for return to the United States.   Due  to  the
rush of moving personnel and supplies the paperwork was lost.

In support of his request, the  applicant  provided  a  personal  statement,
copies of letters/memorandums, a copy of WG Form 53-98, Military Record  and
Report of Separation Certificate of Service; a copy of  his  certificate  of
service, enlisted record, officer’s sortie records and a article  titled,  A
Chronicle of the 351St Bomb Group (H).

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s military personnel records were destroyed by fire  in  1973.
Therefore, the facts surrounding his promotion  cannot  be  verified.   Data
extracted from his reconstructed records reflects that he  was  commissioned
in the Army Air Corps on 22 April 1944 in the grade of second lieutenant.

On 15 November 1945, he was discharged in the grade of first lieutenant.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial.  DPSOO states the reasons for having a  statue
of limitations include the  fact  that  stale  claims  cannot  be  addressed
because the passage of time has resulted in the loss or destruction  of  the
records needed to adjudicate claims.  That is the case here.  The burden  of
proof rests with the applicant.  When the records no longer exist to  verify
his allegations, there's no basis upon which  to  grant  relief.   Hence  it
would not be in the interest of justice to waive the time limit  and  decide
the case on its own merits.  He has not provided any documentation  to  show
he was eligible for promotion to captain prior to his  release  from  active
duty.  Given the unlikelihood of  success  on  the  merits,  DPSOO  strongly
recommends the Board find that it would not be in the  interest  of  justice
to excuse the delay and deny the application as untimely.

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A Veterans’ Service Officer responded on behalf of  the  applicant,  stating
the disapproval is based primarily on  the  lack  of  corroborating  records
resulting from the fire in St Louis in 1973.   The  contention  is  that  it
cannot be determined if he had enough time  in  grade  to  be  eligible  for
promotion when his commander submitted the paperwork for promotion.   It  is
also contended that an opening could not be  verified  because  the  records
were destroyed.  The applicant provided a letter from his  former  commander
stating he submitted promotion papers; however, due to the rush to  get  the
troops back the paperwork  was  lost.   If  his  commander  was  intelligent
enough to do the job of helping the U.S. to victory, the  Board  could  give
him credit for knowing that he had enough time in grade and that  there  was
an  opening  for  captain.   Admittedly,  his  request  was  based  on   his
reflection  of  his  life  at  the  age  of  88.   He  has  no  interest  in
remuneration.  He spent his life working and contributing to  his  community
and would like the  recognition  he  should  have  received.   This  request
should not be denied on the basis of missing records but should  be  granted
on the basis of existing records.  Justice says that  he  did  the  job  and
should get the recognition.  The fact that the request was late in his  life
should not be relevant.  A character reference letter was also submitted  in
support of this application stating when  working  with  elders  it  is  not
uncommon for them to unearth  “unfinished  business”  when  reviewing  their
lives, particularly in  areas  they  would  rather  not  remember.   He  was
eligible and recommended for promotion in a timely manner by  his  commander
at the time.

The complete response, with attachments is attached at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

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.  After a thorough review of  the  available
evidence and the applicant’s complete submission, we find no evidence  which
would lead us to believe that the  applicant's  service  records  should  be
corrected to show that he  was  promoted  to  any  grade  higher  than  that
reflected in his military records.  The statement  provided  in  support  of
his appeal is duly noted; however, absent substantive evidence showing  that
he met the requirements and was recommended  for  promotion  to  captain  as
outlined in AR 605-12, Commissioned Officers, Temporary  Promotions  in  the
Army of the United States, we are not compelled to  recommend  granting  the
relief requested.  Therefore, in the absence of 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  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  BC-2008-
01797 in Executive Session on 14 August 2008 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Ms.  B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
                 Ms.  Janet I. Hassan, Member
                 Ms.  Teri G. Spoutz, Member

The following documentary evidence pertaining to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-
2008-01797 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 January 2008, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 23 June 2008.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 June 2008.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 9 July 2008, w/atchs.




                                   B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                   Panel Chair