RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                 DOCKET NUMBER:  01-02242
                                  INDEX CODE:  131.00
                                  COUNSEL:  NONE

                                  HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be directly promoted to the grade of colonel (0-6) effective on the  date
of the Board’s decision.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

If he is successful in his appeal, he is  unequivocally  waiving  claim  for
any entitlement and/or benefits at the new grade prior to the  date  of  the
Board’s decision.  In fact, if it is possible he will waive  any  additional
pay, entitlements and benefits related to the higher grade.   However,  this
waiver does not detract from his strong belief  that  he  earned  the  grade
during his 21-year career.

He was released from active duty one year prior to his  primary  eligibility
for 0-6, despite the fact  that  his  early  performance  history  had  been
significantly flawed by  an  institutional  tolerance  of  a  then  military
culture steeped in  unfairness  and  bias  against  Black  American  Airmen.
Although he  had  successfully  convinced  prior  AFBCMR  Boards  to  either
eliminate selective performance reports or amend others,  the  Board  failed
to redress the long-term affects  of  the  original  official’s  disparaging
remarks.  The Board essentially  exorcised  a  significant  segment  of  his
performance file rendered on him in the 50’s  and  early  60’s;  yet  as  an
officer he had to later compete with regular  Air  Force  Boards  “years  of
service” which had significantly fewer slots available  and  correspondingly
much  smaller  percentage  of  selections   contrast   with   his   original
contemporaries.  He was advised by the Air Force Military  Personnel  Center
in May 1974, that he missed  augmentation  by  “one”  slot.   He  was  later
advised that there were fewer slots available  for  a  person  competing  in
their 19th year of commissioned service.  He was extended  one  year  beyond
his mandatory separation date (MSD) because of the
requirement to spend two years after  accepting  a  field  grade  promotion.
The  Air  Force  normally  waives  all  but  six  months  of  this  two-year
commitment when retirement eligible.   He  was  advised  by  Colonel  (later
Major General) L-- that he needed a person  like  him  with  experience  and
commitment to resolve a systemic problem that was ongoing  in  Osan  in  the
management of the Comptroller activities.   His  mandatory  retirement  from
active duty was a direct contradiction of the actions by Major General  L--,
who requested in 1975 that the Air Force not approve the  normal  waiver  of
all but six months of the two year promotion  service  commitment.   He  was
needed for an additional year (21st year) but not enough for  another  year,
which would have made him eligible in the primary zone for 0-6.

He has shown why his progress in the early stages of his  Air  Force  career
was delayed for reasons other than  his  performance.   He  has  shown  that
previous AFBCMR Boards made significant  modifications  to  his  performance
file in four different instances, which provided him  equal  opportunity  to
progress, but unfortunately he was not made “whole” in terms of his  ability
to “catch-up” in career timing.

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provides  a  personal  statement;
correspondence relating to  his  previous  AFBCMR  applications  with  Board
decisions  accompanied  with  supporting  documentation  consisting  of   19
attachments.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, who was a Reserve officer serving on  extended  active  duty,
retired from the Air Force on 1  July  1976,  in  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel.  He had served 20 years, 11 months and 19 days on active duty.

The AFBCMR has considered these previous cases:

In an application dated 18 January 1965, the applicant, a captain, made  the
following request: The AF Form 77, USAF Officer Effectiveness Report  (OER),
for the period 1 August 1963 - 31 May 1964 be removed from his records.   On
5 April 1965, as a result of the Board’s  consideration  of  the  case,  the
applicant’s records were corrected as follows: OER for the period  1  August
1963 to 31 May 1964 was declared null and void and removed from his  records
(Case 65-270).

In an application dated 2 September 1965, the  applicant,  a  captain,  made
the following request: That the AF Form 475,  Training  Report  rendered  on
him for the period closing 3 August 1962 which read, “(Applicant’s)  overall
performance at SOS was low satisfactory” be changed to read:  “(Applicant’s)
overall performance at SOS was satisfactory.” On  January  19,  1966,  as  a
result of the Board’s consideration of the  case,  the  applicant’s  records
were amended to delete the word “low” (Case 65-1687).

In applications dated 4 March 1967, 11 March 1967,  (2)  19  May  1967,  the
applicant, a captain, made the following requests: Deletion of the  headings
“Recommended Improvement Areas” and all comments  under  those  headings  in
the following two OERs: 28 June 1958 to 27 December  1958  and  28  December
1958 to 27 June 1959; Removal of OER for the period 14  August  1961  to  28
March  1962,  if  not  favorably  considered,  the  heading  in  Section  V,
“Recommended Improvement  Areas”  and  all  comments  contained  therein  be
deleted from the OER; Deletion  in  Section  VII,  “Recommended  Improvement
Areas” and all comments contained on the OER for the period 1 February  1963
to 31 July 1963; Removal of all three  OER’s  (28 June  1959  -  28  January
1960; 29 January 1960 - 27 January 1961; 28 January 1961 - 13  August  1961)
or in the alternative  deletion  in  Section  VII  of  all  three  OERs  the
“Recommended Improvement Areas” and  all  comments  contained  therein.   On
14 July 1967, as a result of Executive Session the applicant’s  record  were
corrected as follows:  “Recommended Improvement  Areas”,  under  Section  V,
for the periods 28 June 1958 - 27 December 1958,  28  December  1958  to  27
June 1959, 14 August 1961 - 28 March 1962 and 1  February  1963  -  31  July
1963 were deleted, and, the OERs for the period 28 June 1959  -  27  January
1960, 28 January 1960 - 27 January 1961 and 28  January  1961  -  13  August
1961 were declared void and removed from his records (Case 67-1214).

In an application dated 14 February 1968, the  applicant,  a  captain,  made
the following request: That his two promotion  passovers  to  the  grade  of
major be removed because in each of the two instances,  his  records  either
lacked essential documents through no fault of his own or the  configuration
of his file made it very unlikely he had to have received an optimum  chance
for selection.  On 13 May 1968, the Board  denied  his  requests  (Case  68-
1090).

In an application dated 22 April 1970, the  applicant,  a  major,  made  the
following request: His dates of rank (DORs) for promotion to  the  temporary
and permanent grades of major of  31 March  1968  and  15  October  1968  be
changed to correspond to the DORs for similar  officers  in  1966  with  the
same number of active years of commissioned service.  On 22  May  1970,  the
Board denied his requests (Case 70-2014).

In an application dated 23 June 1970 and 18 January 1971, the  applicant,  a
major, made the following requests: That the two passovers for promotion  to
the grade of temporary major that occurred in  1966  and  1967  be  removed.
Alternatively, that one or the other of the passovers  be  removed.   On  25
September 1970 and 24 February 1971, the Board denied his requests (Case 70-
3252 and Case 71-611).  On 17 June 1971, 2 July 1971 and 23 July  1971,  the
Board considered and denied similar appeals from the applicant.

In an application dated 13 May  1972,  the  applicant,  a  major,  made  the
following requests:

        a.  Void the failure of selection for  promotion  to  the  temporary
grade of major by the selection boards which convened  on  17  October  1966
and 16 August 1967.

        b.  Correction of record to show  selection  for  promotion  to  the
temporary grade of major  by  the  selection  board  which  convened  on  17
October 1966 and designation of an appropriate DOR in  the  temporary  grade
of major.

        c.  Correction to show selection  for  promotion  to  the  temporary
grade of lieutenant colonel by the selection board that convened on 26  July
1971 and designation of  an  appropriate  DOR  in  the  temporary  grade  of
lieutenant colonel.

         d.  Other  further  relief  as  may  be  deemed  necessary   and/or
appropriate in order to accord him full and complete relief.

On 29 May 1972, the applicant was advised the Board had denied his  requests
(Case 72-2337).

In  an  application  dated  26  August   1988,   the   applicant   requested
reconsideration of his case to include current  promotion  to  the  rank  of
colonel.  In May 1989, the AFBCMR advised him that his application  did  not
meet the criterion for reconsideration by the Board.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s performance report ratings.

   PERIOD ENDING       OVERALL EVALUATION          CORRECTION/DATE

      8 Sep 56 (2nd Lt)      Training Report (TR)
     10 Jan 57               An Effective Officer
     27 Jun 57 (lst Lt)      An Effective Officer
     27 Jun 58               An Effective Officer
                             (Upgraded to “Very Fine”
                             by indorser)
   * 28 Dec 58               An Effective Officer  Reaccomplished
                                                         BCMR-14 Jul 67
   * 27 Jun 59               A Very Fine Officer         Reaccomplished
                                                         BCMR-14 Jul 67
   * 27 Jan 60               Voided Report               BCMR-14 Jul 67
   * 27 Jan 61               Voided Report               BCMR-14 Jul 67
   * 13 Aug 61               Voided Report               BCMR-14 Jul 67
   * 28 Mar 62 (Capt)  An Effective Officer  Reaccomplished
                                                         BCMR-14 Jul 67
   *  3 Aug 62               TR - Squadron Officer Reaccomplished
                                   School                BCMR-18 Jan 66
     31 Jan 63                    7-2 (9-4 the highest rating)
   * 31 Jul 63                    7-2                    Reaccomplished
                                                         BCMR-14 Jul 67
     31 May 64               Voided Report               BCMR 5 Apr 65
     31 May 65                    7-3
   # 30 Sep 65                    7-3
     30 Sep 66                    8-3
  ** 31 May 67                    9-4
                             (Upgraded from 8-4 by Indorser)
  ## 31 May 68                    9-4
     26 Oct 68 (Maj)         7-2                   Letter of
                                                         Mitigation
                                                         Added-12 Nov 70
     19 Jun 69                    9-4
     26 Nov 69                    TR - AU - in Residence
     29 Jun 70                    9-4
     24 Nov 70                    9-4
     11 Apr 71                    9-4
     11 Apr 72                    9-4
     31 Dec 72                    9-4
 *** 31 Dec 73                    9-4
     17 Jul 74 (Lt Col)           9-4
     31 Mar 75                    3-X-3 (Controlled Report)

NOTE:

   * - Corrected reports.

   # - Top report on file at the 17 Oct 66 temporary major board.

  ** - Top report on file at the 16 Aug 67 temporary and 19 Feb
       68 permanent major boards.

  ## - Top report on file at the 8 Jul 68 temporary major board.

 *** - Top report on file at the 22 Apr 74 temporary lieutenant
       colonel board and the 3 Jun 74 Regular Air Force board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be time-barred.  If the Board  decides
to consider the application on its own merits, then denial  is  recommended.
DPPPO states that the applicant’s original “mandatory”  retirement  date  of
June 1975 resulted from his nonselection for appointment as  a  Regular  Air
Force officer.
He was subsequently selected  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel with a permanent date of rank of 27 June 1974, which resulted  in  a
two-year active duty service commitment.  DPPPO states that he was  required
to serve on active duty until June 1976, a year past his original  mandatory
retirement date.  DPPPO states had the applicant remained  on  active  duty,
he would not have been considered for promotion in the primary zone  to  the
grade of colonel for the first  time  until  1979,  three  years  after  his
retirement date.  That what appears to be a valid argument on his  part  is,
unfortunately, just one-sided, with no  clear-cut  evidence  of  unfairness,
discrimination, or inaccuracy in evaluation.  DPPPO further states  that  he
has not provided conclusive evidence to show his record  contained  comments
and recommendations not rendered in good faith by evaluators  based  on  the
knowledge available at the time; therefore, there is no basis  for  granting
direct promotion.

The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that  he  has  made  at  least  two  unsuccessful  official
requests to the Board in February 1971 and in June 1971 to adjust  his  date
of rank, which in effect would not have made  him  “whole”  but  would  have
allowed him to compete on a level playing “field” with  his  contemporaries.
Applicant states that if we accept the latent resistance that  he  and  many
other  African  American  Servicemen  encountered  seven  years  after   the
integration  of  the  armed  forces  in  July  26,  1948  and  the  previous
corrections made to his early  performance  records,  is  a  testament  that
“they” believed he was a victim of a series  of  unfair  treatment  actions.
Additionally, applicant states that  the  previous  Boards  which  made  the
changes to his record, could not have at that  time,  evisioned  the  future
residual impediments that he  would  incur  as  a  result  of  the  original
damaging actions against him.   Therefore,  the  applicant  humbly  requests
that consideration be given waiving the time-bar limit  as  many  years  ago
this request would not have had  the  benefit  of  the  enlightened  present
thinking from a completely segregated Armed Forces  to  one  that  is  truly
integrated.

His complete submission, 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 filed  within  three  years  after  the  alleged
error or injustice  was  discovered,  or  could  have  been  discovered,  as
required by Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (10  USC  1552),  and
Air Force Instruction 36-2603.  The essential facts which gave rise  to  the
application were known to the applicant long before  this  application  and,
in fact, were contained in applications rejected  on  the  merits  by  prior
Boards.  Thus, the application is untimely.

3.  Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552 permits us,  in  our  discretion,  to  excuse
untimely filing in the interest of  justice.   We  have  carefully  reviewed
applicant's submission  and  the  entire  record,  and  we  do  not  find  a
sufficient basis to excuse the untimely filing  of  this  application.   The
applicant asserts that he intentionally delayed this  application  until  he
perceived a climate more favorable  to  his  request.   This  is  a  totally
unacceptable basis for the applicant's request that the Board  exercise  its
discretion under 10 USC 1552(b).  The applicant has not  shown  a  plausible
reason for delay in filing, and we are not persuaded that the record  raises
issues of  error  or  injustice  that  require  resolution  on  its  merits.
Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in the interest of justice  to
excuse the untimely filing of the application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue  involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

DECISION OF THE BOARD:

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in  the  interest
of justice to waive the untimeliness.  It is the decision  of  the  Board,
therefore, to reject the application as untimely.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 5 September 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr, Panel Chair
      Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
      Mr. Christopher Carey, Member

The following documentary evidence related to  AFBCMR  Docket  No.  01-03283
was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 July 2001, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 24 October 2001.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 November 2001
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 November 2001,
                 w/achs.




                             ALBERT F. LOWAS JR
                                             Panel Chair