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:

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.