RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-00700
		INDEX CODE:  110.00

	APPLICANT	COUNSEL:  None

	SSN	HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect he received a promotion while on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He completed service school training and was reassigned and never received his promotion (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 56 years after his discharge to file and there is no evidence in the available records to indicate that he may have filed a previous claim.  The applicant's delay in filing a claim has caused prejudice to the Air Force.  Based on the passage of time relevant records have been destroyed or are no longer available, memories have failed and witnesses are unavailable.  The applicant's delay regarding his promotion has complicated the Air Force's ability to determine the merits of his position. 

The applicant contends he did not receive his promotion due to the fact that he was reassigned after service school.  Reassignment was and is today the normal practice upon completion of service school.  There were procedures and guidelines in place for a member to receive a promotion while attending service school.

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.  They must assume that his supervisors and commanding officers at the time were in a better position to determine the applicant's promotion eligibility.  Although the applicant may have deserved a promotion, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, again they must assume he was discharged in the proper grade.  Further, they believe that after serving over three years of active duty, his promotion history and eligibility would have been reviewed at the time of separation.  Therefore, based on the rationale provided they recommend denying the applicant’s request (Exhibit D).

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 15 March 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 error or injustice.  Due to limited records and the passage of time we are unable to determine if a promotion to the higher grade was appropriate.  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. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; 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.  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  Docket Number 02-00700 in Executive Session on May 7, 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

			Panel Chair
			Member
			Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Nov 01, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 1 Mar 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Mar 02.