RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01894
INDEX CODE: 131.09
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be provided the retirement grade he should have received.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not retired in the grade that he should have been.
His records were not viewed by a board and contained errors.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided extracts from his
military personnel records.
Applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Army of the United
States, on 22 Apr 43. He was promoted to the temporary grade of
captain on 31 Oct 50.
On 16 Dec 52, the applicant was appointed a captain, Air Force
Reserve. He was promoted to the permanent grade of major on 1 Jul 55.
Applicant was relieved from active duty on 30 Apr 62 in the grade of
captain, and retired, effective 1 May 62, in the grade of major.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air
Force.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial indicating that based on the applicant's
date of rank (DOR) as a captain, he would have been eligible to be
considered for temporary promotion beginning with the Fiscal Year 1953
(FY53) board. Officers who were not recommended for promotion by the
major command, were not considered by the central selection board.
There was evidence in the applicant's record that he was considered
for promotion by at least two temporary promotion boards, but was
nonselected.
In AFPC/DPPPO's view, the applicant has not provided any documentation
to support his contention that he should have been promoted and
retired in a higher grade. Based on the documentation in the
applicant's record, they believe he was considered, but not selected
for temporary promotion to the grade of major.
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished responses and
additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibits E and
F.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility (OPR) 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 have not gone unnoticed.
Notwithstanding this, there is a presumption of regularity in the
conduct of governmental affairs. Other than his own assertions, no
evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that the
applicant should have been promoted and retired in a higher grade, or
that his records are inaccurate. In view of the above, and in the
absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 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 issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
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 AFBCMR Docket Number 02-
01894 in Executive Session on 25 Feb 03, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Gregory Petkoff, Panel Chair
Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Nov 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02.
Exhibit E. Letter, applicant, undated, w/atchs.
Exhibit F. Letter, applicant, dated 30 Dec 02.
GREGORY PETKOFF
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03683
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2004-03683 INDEX CODE: 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 7 June 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His two nonselections to lieutenant colonel be removed; he be granted a waiver of date of rank provisions to allow sufficient time to build a competitive...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02938
If his RegAF promotion were reinstated, he would be able to stay on active duty until age 62, which would give him enough time to meet his IPZ lieutenant colonel promotion board. The applicant was not offered a RegAF appointment when he was selected for promotion to major because his 55th birthday occurs before he completes 20 years of federal commissioned service. The law clearly outlines the age requirements an officer must meet to be granted a RegAF appointment.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01781
According to HQ AFPC/DPPPO’s advisory opinion at Exhibit F, the applicant was considered for the grade of colonel by the following promotion boards: 20 Jun 60 Permanent Colonel (Regular) 12 Jun 61 Regular Colonel 27 Nov 61 HQ USAF Temporary Colonel 11 Jun 62 Regular Colonel 3 Dec 62 Temporary Colonel Nomination 10 Jun 63 Regular Colonel 8 Jul 63 Temporary Colonel Nomination, FY64 14 Sep 64 Central Temporary Colonel, FY65 24 May 65 Regular Colonel 13 Sep 65 Central Temporary Colonel, FY66 20...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01080
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01080 INDEX CODE: 100.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His period of service be extended from 31 Aug 04 to 31 Dec 04, in order to reach 18 years of total active federal military service (TAFMS), so that he may reach the sanctuary and continue to serve until retirement at 20 years of...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-01459
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01459 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 Nov 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2003A (CY03A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02618
He retired in 1974. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPO advises that, based on the applicant’s date of rank (DOR) as a captain, 14 Mar 67, he was eligible to meet the Fiscal Year 1974 (FY74) Temporary Major Selection Board, which convened on 17 Sep 73. If he had been notified of his selection for promotion, he would certainly have delayed his retirement to accept the promotion.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-04042
As well, the senior rater should not have waited until the June 1999 OPR to determine he did not have all the information for his PRF. He was selectively chosen for the position he was holding and the senior rater was unaware of the records review process and his selection for the position by his senior staff. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00695
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPASA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial indicating that although the additional duty title entry of “Program Manager” was incorrectly listed on the applicant's OSB, his duty title effective 17 Apr 01, as “Dep Progm Mngr, JSOW,” was correctly reflected on his P0502B Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) that met the board. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01894
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO recommends the AFBCMR grant SSB consideration with inclusion of the updated deployment history on his OSB and removal of the discrepancy report. Notwithstanding our recommendation above, we agree with AFPC/DPAOM6 that the applicant did attempt to correct his duty history and deployment history prior to meeting the Board, and therefore should be afforded SSB consideration with the corrected OSB. Therefore, the Board recommends that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00938
They noted the argument that the applicant was forced to compete unfairly at the three SSBs conducted in 1998 because he was unable to compile or establish a record in his new grade of major before meeting these boards, and agreed with the assessment that meeting a lieutenant colonel board without any record of service in the form of evaluation reports in the grade of major certainly made the applicant less competitive and more likely to be nonselected. We agree with AFPC/JA that it is not...