RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01830
INDEX CODE: 100.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His grade be changed from Flight Officer to Second Lieutenant.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Due to the large number of flying personnel being trained at the time,
Congress ran out of commissions; however, more were to be issued at a
later date. The dropping of the atom bomb ended the war, and as a
result, he never applied for a commission.
He stated that he never did apply nor did he ever get the chance to fly
overseas and fight for his country. Now that he is in the twilight of
his life, he would be proud to bear the rank of 2nd lieutenant on his
eulogy and obituary. He also states that there is no error or injustice
in his case. He feels it would be an honor and privilege to finally
receive his commission and respectfully makes this request. He seeks no
additional benefits or gains.
The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant military records appear to have been destroyed in the 1973 fire
at the National Personnel Records Center.
Based on the available records, it appears that he enlisted in the Army
Air Corps on 9 Sep 42 and was honorably discharged on 16 Nov 45. He
served 3 years, 2 months, and 7 days on active duty. His grade at the
time of his separation was flight officer.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Skills Management Branch, Directorate, Personnel Program
Management, AFPC/DPPAE, reviewed this application and indicated that
according to Army Regulation 610-50, Flight Officers, 5 Nov 42, the
selection criteria for commissioning included flying credentials,
leadership, judgement, and individual merit. Also, a flight officer
could not be appointed as a second lieutenant until completion of three
months of service.
Applicant concedes there was no error or injustice that prevented his
appointment as a second lieutenant. Therefore, it would not be
appropriate to grant his request based solely on his personal desire to
be a commissioned officer. Based on the above, they recommend denial of
his request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that there was an
injustice done to him. As he stated, he was not at the top of his class
nor at the bottom. He was told there were not enough commissions to go
around because of high casualties and the vast number of cadets being
trained and as soon as more commissions were made available, he would
receive his. He had just finished his training and had orders to join a
crew to go overseas. He was ready and cannot be blamed for serving only
in this country. In fact, he would have gone overseas but was trained in
B-24 aircraft which were declared obsolete and therefore he had to
retrain in B-29 bombers which delayed his overseas service.
He again appeals to the Board to grant him the commission he was
promised. He did serve as a flight officer for over three months.
Applicant’s complete response is attached 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. After a thorough review of
the limited evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that his grade should be changed from flight officer to second
lieutenant. His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find
these uncorroborated assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. We
therefore agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the
rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has
failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an
injustice. Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought.
4. The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not been
shown that a personal appearance, with or without counsel, will add to
our understanding of the issues involved. Therefore, the request for a
hearing is not favorably considered.
___________________________________________________________________
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 21 September 2000, under the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
Mr. William E. Edwards, Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Mar 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPAE, dated 8 Aug 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Aug 00.
Exhibit E. Letter fr applicant, dated 31 Aug 00.
GREGORY H. PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02306
On 15 Aug 03, HQ AFPC/DPPPRA informed the applicant that her late husband’s records contained no indication he was ever recommended for or awarded the SSM. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, a majority of the Board is not persuaded that the late veteran should be awarded the SSM. MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2003-02306 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) SUBJECT:...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-01483
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-01483 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: NO IN THE MATTER OF: XXXXXXXXXX _______________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be commissioned as an officer. DPSIPR states the applicant’s record contains no documentation to support appointment to second lieutenant upon completion of training, nor is there documentation to support he was recommended for...
He recommended the applicant for award of the DFC. A second crewmember (position unidentified, but held the rank of first lieutenant) provided an affidavit stating he had received the DFC “as did several other members of this crew.” He also recommended the applicant be awarded the DFC for his accomplishments as tail gunner and provided a proposed citation. After a thorough review of the evidence presented, to include the statements from members of the applicant’s crew, we are sufficiently...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00189
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Military Record and Report of Separation Certificate of Service does not reflect that he was awarded the WW II Victory Medal or promoted to second lieutenant in Sep 45 and this may have been because the new organization did not act on the approval dated 3 May 45 or the orders were lost or simply did not catch up to his new military base organization. Therefore, the only issue for the Board to...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Military Record and Report of Separation Certificate of Service does not reflect that he was awarded the WW II Victory Medal or promoted to second lieutenant in Sep 45 and this may have been because the new organization did not act on the approval dated 3 May 45 or the orders were lost or simply did not catch up to his new military base organization. Therefore, the only issue for the Board to...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02737
On 12 Dec 01, the applicant was disqualified from flying by the Air Combat Command Surgeon due to a diagnosis of narcotic abuse based on an aeromedical summary prepared by his attending flight surgeon at the time. Records reveal on 12 Dec 01 the applicant was medically disqualified by ACC/SG as requested by his flight surgeon. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G. Pursuant to the Board’s request, the BCMR Medical Consultant provided an evaluation of the applicant’s appeal.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03110
A United States Army Air Forces Report of Aircraft Accident indicates that on 12 Aug 44, the applicant was the pilot of an aircraft that effected a normal takeoff. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial stating that there was no indication in the applicant’s records he was recommended for award of any decoration for the incident that occurred on 12 Aug 44. Notwithstanding this, no evidence has been presented...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03110
A United States Army Air Forces Report of Aircraft Accident indicates that on 12 Aug 44, the applicant was the pilot of an aircraft that effected a normal takeoff. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial stating that there was no indication in the applicant’s records he was recommended for award of any decoration for the incident that occurred on 12 Aug 44. Notwithstanding this, no evidence has been presented...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01552 INDEX NUMBER: 121.00, 128.14 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Oversea Tour Extension Incentive be changed from the 30-day non- chargeable leave to the $2,000 lump sum bonus. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She states that she had planned to take leave during her entitlement period; however, due to unforeseen military changes in the mission, she was unable...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00609
DPPAE states the applicant is not eligible to receive the SRB that was in effect when he was approved for retraining because he did not reenlist within 30 days of the notice of termination of the SRB for that career field. DPPAE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states he never received official notification of the requirement to reenlist within 30 days of...