RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01242
INDEX CODE: 110.00
APPLICANT COUNSEL: None
SSN HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He receive documents indicating his rank and serial number while in
the inactive reserve.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
After his release from active duty he never received documents
indicating his grade and serial number for the inactive reserve
(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.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPB states that individuals appointed in the Army U.S. during
World War II were appointed commissions for the duration of the war
plus six (6) months. The original commission expired six months
following the individual's release, unless a second commission was
offered. The information that the applicant is seeking is provided on
the WD AGO Form 53-98, which he submitted with his application.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states General S, states in an Army Air Force (AAF)
Letter 35-77 dated 29 May 1946, that there is no rank of flight
officers in the AAF reserve. He believes the General infers that
flight officers did not receive their just dues.
Applicant's complete response with attachments 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air
Force and adopt their rationale 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. We believe it should be pointed out that
the applicant's decorated service and sacrifice for his country has
not gone unnoticed. Notwithstanding this, no evidence has been
presented to show the applicant applied for a commission as required
by the regulations of that time. 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 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 Docket Number 02-
01242 in Executive Session on 16 July 2002, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
Mr. James E. Short, Member
Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 3 Apr 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 16 May 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 31 May 02.
Exhibit E. Applicant's Response, dated 20 Jun 02.
PEGGY E. GORDON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-01242
Further, it appears the AAF Letter advised Flight Officers of the proper procedures to apply for a commission after separation from active duty. With regard to the applicant’s request for documents indicating his rank and serial number upon his release from active duty, we note the Certificate of Service, which he provided, clearly reflects his rank as a Flight Officer with a serial number of T 64 814. Apparently, as noted by the Air Force in their initial review of this application, his...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03393
A health professions officer nominated for PV promotion must complete their PME by the PRF submission date, 45 days before the board convenes. We note that apparently in accordance with the established governing policy, the applicant’s nomination for a PV promotion was returned because she had not completed the appropriate level of professional military education (PME) at the time the PRF was submitted. In this respect, the Board notes that a health professions officer nominated for PV...
They indicate the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the USAFR effective 1 October 1995, prior to the effective date of his promotion. The applicant was considered by the earliest possible promotion board. At the time of his transfer to the USAF Reserve, he did not meet the eligibility requirement for promotion to lieutenant colonel under the provisions of the Reserve Officer Promotion Act (ROPA).
INDEX CODE 135.02 AFBCMR 02-03369 MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION BEFORE THE AFBCMR SUBJECT: Having carefully reviewed this application, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Staff and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has been the victim of either an error or an injustice. Therefore, under the authority delegated in AFI 36-2603, the applicant's records will be corrected as set forth in the accompanying Memorandum for the Chief...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2000-02455C
The Air Force evaluation stated that there were some errors in the applicant's record as it appeared before the selection boards in question and recommended to the Board that corrections be made to his Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs), he receive SSB consideration for the FY00 and FY01 boards, and if not selected by either board, he be considered for continuation by Special Review Board (SRB). The Board concurred with the recommendation of the Air Force evaluator and recommended that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02956
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommends the requested relief be denied. No documentation has been provided by the applicant’s previous command to indicate that they are in support of his request; or that they were given erroneous information regarding accelerated promotion. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Oct 07.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Before she entered the Air Force in 1995, she was told by recruiters in the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) recruiting office in Washington DC that there was a 4-year active duty service commitment with a 2- year inactive Reserve commitment upon discharge. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ ARPC/DPA concedes it is regretful that the applicant...
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...
DPB states when he was appointed, he did not claim full-time employment during the time period in question. A review of his original commissioning application reflects constructive service credit was accurately awarded at the time of his appointment based on the information he provided. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 23 Jul 03, for...
_________________________________________________________________ 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 at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPPS reviewed this application and recommended denial. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging...