RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02870
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for assignment to a general officer position.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

It appears he was not considered for assignment to a  general  officer
position  because  of  an  omission,  non-intentional  oversight,   or
misplacement of his documents.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant   provided   copies   of
congressional correspondence, extracts  from  his  military  personnel
records, and other documents associated with the matter under review.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s available military personnel records indicates that on
4 Sep 75 his name was placed on the United  States  Air  Force  (USAF)
Retired List and he retired, effective 5  Sep  75,  in  the  grade  of
colonel.  He was credited with 20  years,  4  months,  and  7 days  of
service for retirement.

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:

HQ USAF/REPS recommended denial noting that the applicant was notified
on 20 Jul 62 and again on 1 Aug 63 that in each  of  these  years  his
“Selection Folder” had been reviewed  to  determine  “eligibility  for
consideration by a Reserve Screening Board for assignment of  officers
to General Officer Positions."  In both cases, the letters noted  that
the member’s folder did not contain a current  photograph  within  one
year of the board convening and requested  that  he  provide  the  Air
Reserve Records Center with one by a specific date.   In  both  cases,
the applicant has noted that he complied with these requests.

According to HQ USAF/REPS, the 20 Jul 62 letter noted the following in
paragraph 3.  “Since this board action is preliminary, no announcement
of  the  board  findings  and  recommendations   will   be   released.
Assignment to general officer positions will be announced by Air Force
orders subsequent to action of central selection board.”  The  request
for the first photograph was made in Jul 62  and  requested  that  the
photograph be forwarded by 26 Jul 62.   The  request  for  the  second
photograph was made in Aug 63 and requested  that  the  photograph  be
forwarded by 19 Aug 63. Since the photograph taken  in  Jul  62  would
have not been within one year of the request for the photograph in Aug
63, this would explain why a new photograph was required for the  1963
board.

As previously noted, the Air Reserve Records Center was not  going  to
make  announcements  of  the  board  findings   and   recommendations.
Therefore, the fact that the  applicant  was  not  notified  does  not
indicate or prove  he  was  not  properly  considered  either  through
omission, non-intentional oversight, or misplacement of his documents.

A complete copy of the HQ USAF/REPS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the  advisory  opinion  and  furnished  a  response
indicating, in summary, that he is not seeking nor is he interested in
the  amount  of  financial  retirement  benefit  between  his  present
retirement compensation as a colonel and a general  officer  financial
benefit.  He is only interested in the importance and significance  of
an assignment to a general officer position  to  him  and  his  family
after 34 years of active duty and reserve service.

Applicant’s complete response, 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  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.
There is a presumption of regularity in the  conduct  of  governmental
affairs.  Other than his own uncorroborated  assertions,  no  evidence
has been presented which would lead us to believe that  the  applicant
was not properly  considered  for  assignment  to  a  general  officer
position because of any omission, oversight, or  misplacement  of  his
documents.  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.

_________________________________________________________________

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-
02870 in Executive Session on 25 Mar 03, under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

      Mr. Robert S. Boyd, Panel Chair
      Ms. Ann-Cecile McDermott, Member
      Mr. James A. Wolffe, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ USAF/REPS, dated 16 Oct 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Oct 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 31 Oct 02.



                                   ROBERT S. BOYD
                                   Panel Chair