RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00327
            INDEX NUMBER:  102.03

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted  a  Regular  Air  Force  (RegAF)  appointment.   In  the
alternative, he requests that his records be  competed  against  RegAF
selectees from  his  year  group  and  that  he  be  granted  a  RegAF
appointment as if he had originally been selected.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was never considered for a RegAF appointment.   His  commander  did
not follow AFROTC 53-5 and simply dropped the ball.

Applicant’s complete statement and documentary evidence  submitted  in
support of his appeal are at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  reflects
that, on 1 May 1993, applicant was  appointed  as  second  lieutenant,
Reserve of the Air Force.  He was commissioned through the  Air  Force
Reserve Officer  Training  Corps  (AFROTC)  and  was  a  Distinguished
Graduate (DG).  He has served on continuous active duty  since  1  May
1993, and has been progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  captain,
with a date of rank and effective date of 12 November 1996.

A resume of applicant’s OPRs, as reflected in the PDS, follows:

      PERIOD CLOSING   OVERALL EVALUATION

        20 Jan 94      Education/Training Report (TR)
        20 Jan 95      Meets Standards (MS)
         9 Nov 95      TR
        16 Aug 96      MS
        16 Aug 97      MS
        16 Aug 98      MS



___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Officer Appointment/Selective Continuation  Section,  AFPC/DPPPOC,
stated applicant was designated a DG from ROTC in FY92.  At  the  time
of his DG designation, a program existed to allow ATC  (now  AETC)  to
nominate up to ten percent of the total AFROTC graduates for  a  RegAF
appointment (nominees had to be distinguished graduates).  A review of
their historical files concerning the RegAF appointments for FY92 ROTC
DGs found that the Board convened in February 1992  at  HQ  AFROTC  to
review the ROTC DGs nomination  packages  and  selected/nominated  ten
percent of the cadets for a RegAF appointment;  the  nominations  were
approved by ATC/CC in April 1992, and the packages were processed  for
presidential signature and senate confirmation  on  the  appointments.
The package included a listing of all cadets who  were  considered  by
the board.  The listing did not contain either the applicant’s name or
that of another cadet from his ROTC Detachment.

Based on their findings and the evidence provided  by  the  applicant,
DPPPOC believes that there were miscommunications among the  personnel
at applicant’s ROTC Detachment.  They further  believe  his  commander
intended that the applicant be given the opportunity to compete for  a
RegAF appointment.  DPPPOC  provided  their  views/options  concerning
applicant’s situation:

      The FY92 ROTC DG RegAF Appointment Board convened  approximately
seven years ago.  At this time it would be impossible  to  reconstruct
his or ROTC DG selectees’ records and determine if he  would  have/not
have been selected for a  RegAF  appointment.   Also,  the  nomination
board selections were based upon a cadet’s performance while attending
college.

      The applicant is considered part of the 1993 year  group,  whose
first consideration for a RegAF appointment will be with selection for
promotion to major.  The only officers  who  may  already  be  Regular
prior to their major board will be Air  Force  Academy  graduates  and
those  ROTC  DGs  who  were   offered/accepted   RegAF   appointments.
Applicant’s selection brief at the promotion board  will  reflect  his
status as an ROTC DG.

DPPPOC deferred the final decision to the Board.  While  they  believe
an injustice occurred, they cannot determine if he had  met  the  ROTC
RegAF Appointment Board that he would have been selected.   Also,  the
opportunity exists for him to receive a RegAF Appointment if  selected
for promotion to major and his record reflects his ROTC DG status.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the advisory  opinion,  applicant  stated  that  he  is
confident, given the opportunity, he would have been selected from the
pool of ROTC DGs in his year group.  He further stated that to  ensure
that he was worthy then, as well as now, of a RegAF appointment, he is
providing copies of the more pertinent award certificates he  received
as a cadet in the AFROTC program.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

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  warranting  corrective
action.  We noted that the Air Force office of primary  responsibility
believes  there  may  have  been  some  miscommunications  among   the
personnel at the applicant’s ROTC Detachment regarding nominations  of
AFROTC Distinguished Graduates (DGs) for a Regular Air  Force  (RegAF)
appointment.   However,  after  careful  review  of  the   applicant’s
complete submission, other than  his  own  assertions,  we  find  that
persuasive evidence has not been presented showing that he would  have
been a selectee even if he had met the ROTC RegAF  Appointment  Board.
Furthermore, in view of the passage of time, it would not be  possible
to reconstruct the records of the applicant and the ROTC DG  selectees
to determine whether or not he would have been among the 10 percent of
the considerees selected  for  a  RegAF  appointment.   Based  on  the
foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we conclude
that there is no basis to recommend  favorable  consideration  of  the
applicant’s request.

___________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  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 1 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                       Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 99, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPOC, dated 2 Mar 99.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Mar 99.
    Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 19 Apr 99, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair