RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03867
		INDEX CODE:  

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  20 JUNE 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he was promoted to the grade of staff or technical sergeant upon completion of Aerial Gunnery School and assignment as an AAF Gunnery instructor.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Personnel completing these schools in earlier graduations received the ranking of staff or technical sergeant.

In support of the appeal, applicant submits a statement from his daughter, a copy of his WD AGO 53-55, Enlisted Record and Report of Separation, a copy of his discharge certificate, and a copy of a letter from the National Personnel Records Center.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant’s master personnel record (MPR) appears to have been destroyed by the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis.

Based on the available documentation the following facts are provided.

Applicant was inducted into the Army Air Force on 26 April 1943 and entered active duty on 3 May 1943.  He performed duties as AAF Gunnery Instructor.  His highest grade held was corporal.  On 16 February 1946, he was honorably discharged because of demobilization.  He was credited with 2 years, 6 months and 26 days of continental service and 2 months and 18 days of foreign service.  His separation document shows he was entitled to the American Theater Service Medal, European African Middle Eastern Theater Service Medal, and Good Conduct Medal.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPWB states based on the extremely limited records (destroyed by fire in 1973) and the passage of time, it is not possible for them at this point to determine if promotion to a higher grade was appropriate.  While the applicant may have been deserving of promotion, in the absence of documentation to the contrary, they must assume he was discharged in the proper grade--corporal.  They believe that supervisors and commanding officers at the time were in a better position to evaluate the applicant’s potential and eligibility for promotion.  They also believe that after serving almost three years of active duty, his promotion history and eligibility for promotion would have been reviewed at the time of discharge.  The Air Force asserts that the applicant’s delay regarding a matter now dating back over 57 years has greatly complicated its ability to determine the merits of his position.  Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 4 February 2005, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant for review and response within 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 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 the 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 this application in Executive Session on 17 May 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 10 Dec 04, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFPC/DPPPWB, dated 14 Jan 05.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 4 Feb 05.