RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00704

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO



APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show that he was discharged from the  Air  Force
as a captain with active duty from February 1942 to 7 June 1950.


APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was sworn into the United States Army Air  Force  in  February  1942  and
served until 7 June 1950, at which time he was told that he  was  discharged
as a captain.

The applicant states that he plans to be buried in a military  cemetery  and
wants his records to be correct and correspond  to  what  he  has  told  his
family and friends over the years.

The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.


STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 May 1942, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army Air  Corps,
Air Force Enlisted Reserve, in the grade of private.

The applicant served on active duty from  21  February  1943  to  7 February
1944.

On 8 February 1944, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant  in  the
Army of the United  States  and  was  promoted  to  first  lieutenant  on  4
September 1945.

On 27 February 1948, the applicant was tendered an appointment as a  captain
in the Officers’ Reserve Corps under Section 37, National Defense Act.

The applicant accepted appointment as a captain, Air Reserve, Air  Force  of
the United States on 20 July 1948.

Applicant was relieved from active duty on 7 June 1950 by  reason  of  undue
hardship.

Effective 1 April 1953, the applicant was voluntarily  terminated  from  the
Air Force Reserve.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Officer Promotion Section, AFPC/DPPPO, reviewed  the  application
and   states   that   applicant’s   Military   Record    and    Report    of
Separation/Certificate of Service is correct. It  reflects  the  applicant’s
service while on active duty as a  commissioned  officer  (8  February  1944
through 7 June 1950) and reflects his highest grade  held  while  on  active
duty (1st Lt, USAF), in the Army of the United States.  Appointment  in  the
Officers’ Reserve Corps did not affect an officer’s status  on  active  duty
and they did not perform the duties of an  officer  under  this  appointment
until so directed by competent orders.  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:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and states that the  evaluation  fails
to address his biggest concern - that he was discharged from the  Army  even
though his name states USAF.   Furthermore,  the  period  indicated  on  the
Certificate of Service  incorrectly  states  his  period  of  service  as  8
February 1944 to 7 June 1950.  Immediately  after  the  Japanese  attack  of
Pearl Harbor, he took the written and physical tests to enter the  Army  Air
Force pilot cadet program.  He was sworn into the Army Air  Force  and  told
to go back to college where he would be notified of when and where to go  on
active duty.  He received his orders and reported  for  active  duty  on  21
February 1943.  To his knowledge, he never served in the Army after the  Air
Force was formed.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit D.


ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

SAF/MIBR contacted AFPC/DPPRS regarding the issuance of the  Certificate  of
Service and provided the following:

      a.    The Air Force used Department of the Army Directives  and  Forms
well beyond the date the Air Force became a separate branch of service.

      b.    The earliest directive  available  was  Army  Regulation  635-5,
Personnel  Separations  -  Separation  Forms.   The  contested  form  became
obsolete with the revision to the regulation  in  January  1960.   Prior  to
that date, the form would have been preprinted with the “Army of the  United
States” heading given the use of Army forms/publications at  the  time.   As
was indicated on the applicant’s form, his branch of service  was  indicated
at the “Given at” portion of the form.

      c.    There were no provisions to amend the form as  with  the  Report
of Separation.  Corrections involved  reissuing  the  form.   Based  on  the
foregoing, there is no administrative remedy to effect the  corrections  the
applicant seeks.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.


APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and  states  that  he  was  discharged
from the Army as indicated on his Certificate of Service.   He  should  have
been discharged from the Air Force.  In addition, he served on  active  duty
from 21 February 1943 to 7 June 1950.  There is no monetary  issue  involved
in his request.  He does not receive  a  military  pension  and  his  Social
Security is the maximum without credit for any military service.

Applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit G.


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.  In this  respect,  we  note  that
applicant’s Military Record and Report of Separation/Certificate of  Service
correctly reflects his service  while  on  active  duty  as  a  commissioned
officer during the period 8 February 1944 through 7 June 1950  and  reflects
his highest grade held while on active duty (1st Lt, USAF), in the  Army  of
the United States.  The applicant’s appointment  in  the  Officers’  Reserve
Corps did not affect his status on active duty.  In addition, the Air  Force
used Department of the Army Directives and Forms well beyond  the  date  the
Air Force became a  separate  branch  of  service  and  the  contested  form
(certificate of service) was used  until  the  revision  of  the  applicable
regulation in January 1960. 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 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 26 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
                  Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
                  Mr. John E. Pettit, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Mar 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 Jun 00.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Jun 00.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 29 Aug 00.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, date 18 Sep 00, w/atchs.




             HENRY ROMO, JR.
                                  Panel Chair