Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100095
Original file (0100095.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00095

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted a terminal leave promotion to the grade of captain.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The very satisfactory efficiency report he  received  was  unjust  and
prevented him from receiving a terminal leave promotion to  the  grade
of captain.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from  the
applicant's military records, are contained in the letter prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force.   Accordingly,  there  is  no
need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Officer  Promotion  Section,  AFPC/DPPPO,  reviewed   the
applicant’s request and recommended denial because the member did  not
meet the eligibility requirements  for  terminal  leave  promotion  to
captain.  The terminal leave promotion  eligibility  requirements  the
applicant believes should have applied did not become effective  until
13 Dec 45 which was after he was relieved from active duty.  On 19 Oct
45, terminal leave  promotions  were  authorized  for  officers  being
separated and relieved  from  active  duty,  who  did  not  receive  a
promotion while on active duty in their present grade,  provided  they
served two (2) years in grade in which ordered to active duty and that
they have an efficiency index of 35 or higher.   Since  applicant  was
promoted to first lieutenant while he was on active duty,  he  is  not
entitled to a terminal leave promotion under these rules.
It was not until 13  Dec  45,  that  terminal  leave  promotions  were
authorized for officers who had already been promoted while on  active
duty.  These officers were required to have served 18 months  time-in-
grade as a first lieutenant and to have attained a minimum  efficiency
index of 40.  Applicant was not on active duty when this  change  came
into effect.

A review of the applicant’s record reflects he was  twice  recommended
for promotion to captain and both  times  the  applications  were  not
acted upon.  In May 44, the request was returned with no action  taken
because there was no existing  position  vacancy  due  to  surplus  of
officers in the grade of captain.  In Jun 45, the request was returned
because applicant was eligible  for  relief  from  active  duty  under
redeployment regulations.

The applicant believes the reason he was  ineligible  for  a  terminal
leave  promotion  was  based  on  his  efficiency  index.   Therefore,
applicant requested his report for the period 1 Jul 44 through 31  Dec
44 be voided due to an unfair  rating  of  “very  satisfactory.”   His
request was approved on 12 Mar 52.  On 20 Mar 52, applicant  requested
reconsideration of terminal leave promotion to captain.  On 31 Aug 53,
the Air Force Board of the Correction of Military records  disapproved
his request.

They have no recommendation should the board elect to grant relief  to
the applicant over their objection.

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________


APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluation  and  provides  a
response, which 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 evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that he should be promoted to  captain  under  the  terminal
leave provision.  Applicant’s 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 agree with the recommendations 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, absent persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis upon which to recommend granting
the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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 31 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
                 Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 00.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 26 Feb 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Mar 01.
      Exhibit E. Applicant's response, dated 12 Mar 01.



      KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
      Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0000095

    Original file (0000095.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00095 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be granted a terminal leave promotion to the grade of captain. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Officer Promotion Section, AFPC/DPPPO, reviewed the applicant’s request and recommended...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00913

    Original file (BC-2004-00913.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Officers were not recommended for promotion until they served the minimum time in grade (TIG) requirements. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPO asserts their review of all applicable regulations regarding POW promotions and the applicant’s record and found no documentation indicating he was recommended for promotion to captain upon his return to military control or that he should have been promoted under any other provisions...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02048

    Original file (BC-2010-02048.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS On 17 Oct 45, the War Department announced that officers of all Reserve Components up to the grade of colonel who had not been promoted while on active duty would be promoted to the higher grade effected on the date they go on terminal leave, provided they served on active duty for two years and had an efficiency index of 35. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to the APPLICANT be corrected to show...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100414

    Original file (0100414.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00414 INDEX NUMBER: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY00B Major Selection Board (18 Sep 00) (P0400B) with his officer performance report (OPR) closing 14 Sep 00 included in his officer selection record (OSR). ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0000221

    Original file (0000221.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    While the applicant has failed to submit sufficient evidence showing he was promoted to the grade of captain, we do note that the applicant was recommended for promotion to the grade of captain based on his outstanding leadership, paramount devotion to duty, and his achievements as a first lieutenant. Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. Exhibit B.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03732

    Original file (BC-2004-03732.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The efficiency index ratings for incidental assignments should not be included because insufficient time is available for proper evaluation. The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial. Effective 13 December 1945,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02515

    Original file (BC-2003-02515.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant entered active duty as a second lieutenant, Army of the United States, on 29 Apr 43. In reviewing the applicant’s record and all applicable regulations in regard to POW promotions, they find no documentation to support the applicant’s promotion to captain. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01236

    Original file (BC-2005-01236.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: In 1980 he was rated by a noncommissioned officer (NCO) with the same rank and time in service (TIS). DPPP states a review of the applicant’s record reveals he was considered and nonselected for promotion to technical sergeant five times (cycles 82A6- 86A6) with the first contested report (8 July 1980) used in the promotion process. The complete DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0100848

    Original file (0100848.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He includes Army/Air Corps officers’ letters, dating from 1945-46, recommending his promotion to major and asserting he was recommended for promotion to captain on or about 5 Mar 42. 295, dated 24 Oct 44, the applicant was promoted to the grade of captain effective that date. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be promoted to the grade of major.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01189

    Original file (BC-2003-01189.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    HQ ARPC/DPB indicates they could not locate the promotion order that advanced him in grade to USAFR captain and advises that the requirements of the Air Force at the time of the USAF appointment dictated the grade in which the applicant could be appointed. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPPPO asserts neither the applicant’s record nor his submission supports his contention that he should have been promoted to captain when he entered active duty in 1951 and, if he...