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
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
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
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...
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). ...
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
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
_________________________________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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
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...