RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2017-01592

	COUNSEL:  NONE

	HEARING:  NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  His rank be reflected as Master Sergeant (MSgt) on his War Department (WD) Adjutant General’s Office (AGO) Form 100, Separation Qualification Record, WD AGO 53-55. Enlisted Record and Report of Separation and Permanent Orders 240-6 dated 27 Aug 96.

2.  His WD AGO Form 100, Separation Qualification Record, be corrected to reflect:

	a.   His date of birth as 2 Aug 1918 rather than 2 Aug 1915.

	b.   His Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) be changed to reflect he served as an Aviation Cadet (AC).

	c.  Item 10, “Months” should reflect a total of 80 months rather than 73 months.  

3.  His WD AGO 53-55. Enlisted Record and Report of Separation and Honorable Discharge certificate be corrected to reflect his final assignment as the 19th Bombardment Group.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a sergeant when he completed Radio Operator School and was a technical sergeant before being captured by the Japanese.  He should have been promoted to the grade of master sergeant based on the guidance published on 22 Sep 45, to promote service members by one grade who were held prisoners by the Japanese.  The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps (AAC) on 29 Aug 39.   

According to documents submitted by the applicant, h e was in a Prisoner of War (POW) status from 9 Mar 42 to 18 Sep 45 and on 19 Sep 45; he was returned back to military control and promoted to the grade of Sergeant (E-4).

On 20 May 46, the applicant was honorably discharged and credited with 6 years, 8 months and 21 days of active duty service.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisories at Exhibits C thru F.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DP2SPP recommends denying the application, indicating that based on the documentation provided by the applicant, rank structure during the timeframe, and the policies regarding promotion of POWs, he was provided a one-grade promotion from E3 to E4.  There was no documentation found showing that he was ever promoted to the grades of SSgt (E-5) or TSgt (E-6), which would have been a requirement prior to promotion to MSgt (E-7), and was the highest enlisted rank during that timeframe.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application, indicating that correcting the WD-AGO Form 100, Separation Qualification Record is not possible as this form or an equivalent form is not in the Air Force’s inventory.  However, the applicant is in possession of his DD Form 214, which indicates his correct date of birth.  The DD Form 214 should be the document used for entitlements/benefits versus the Army document.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DP2STM recommends denying the application, indicating there is no evidence of an error or injustice with the applicant’s discharge processing.  There was no evidence provided or located in the applicant’s master personnel records showing he was assigned to the 19th Bombardment Group.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DP3DW recommends denying the application, indicating there was no evidence provided or located in the applicant’s personnel record to show he was classified as an Aviation Cadet during his military service.  

The complete advisory is at Exhibit F.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Board sent copies of the Air Force evaluations to the applicant on 6 Dec 18 for comment (Exhibit G), but has received no response.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available avenues of non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After thoroughly reviewing all Exhibits, it is the Board’s opinion that the applicant is not the victim of an error/injustice/error and injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and finds that a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years after the alleged error or injustice was discovered, or should have been discovered, as required by Title 10, United States Code, Section 1552, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  While the applicant asserts a date of discovery less than three years before the Board’s receipt of the application, the Board does not find the assertion reasonable.  The Board finds the application untimely and concludes it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay.  Therefore, the Board recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be informed the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the application will only be reconsidered upon receipt of relevant evidence not already considered by the Board.

CERTIFICATION:

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2017-01592 in Executive Session on 27 Jun 19:

, Panel Chair
, Panel Member
, Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Forms 149, w/atchs, dated 18 Mar 17.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2SPP, dated 25 Oct 18.
Exhibit D:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 8 Nov 18.
Exhibit E:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP2STM, dated 15 Nov 18.
Exhibit F:	Advisory opinion, AFPC/DP3DW, dated 28 Nov 18.
Exhibit G:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to applicant, dated 6 Dec 18.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.