RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-03702
                       INDEX CODE:  100.00

      APPLICANT  Counsel:  DAV

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His enlisted rank be restored to the rightful officer  rank  he  might
have achieved from 1988 to present.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied the opportunity to enter Officer Training  School  (OTS)
and Reserve Office Training Corps (ROTC) due to racial discrimination.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 5 January 1977  and
served continuously until his retirement on 1 September  1994  in  the
grade of staff sergeant.  He served a total of 17 years, 7 months  and
26 days of active service.   He  retired  under  the  temporary  early
retirement program.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFRS/SOCL states the Air Force Recruiting  Service  no  longer  has
records for OTS selection boards conducted in the 1980’s and that they
do not maintain paper records after  one  year  of  final  disposition
after competing on a selection board, and  their  historical  database
only goes  back  to  1997.   Therefore,  they  cannot  verify  if  the
applicant submitted an application for OTS.
They further state that Airman  Education  and  Commissioning  Program
(AECP) is an  AFROTC  program  and  they  cannot  address  information
pertaining to the applicant’s Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT)
application.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPAO states a  review  of  the  regulation  (AFR  53-27  Officer
Training School, USAF (OTS), para 3k) in effect at  the  time  of  the
alleged injustice, indicates that applicants were required to have  an
interview from the unit commander for completion  of  Air  Force  (AF)
Form 1145, Evaluation of Commissioning Applicants,  remarking  on  the
applicant’s potential for commissioning, duty performance,  acceptance
of   responsibility,   motivation,   initiative,   maturity,   working
relationships, communication skills, appearance, and  whether  or  not
the applicant had assignment limitations.  There was no mention  of  a
requirement for the  applicant  to  have  an  interview  by  the  base
commander or any indication as to why  the  base  commander  would  be
involved  in  the  application  process.   Furthermore,  there  is  no
evidence indicating the applicant completed an AF Form 1145  to  apply
for OTS, nor is there any documentation to support his allegation that
his commander denied him the opportunity to apply for OTS based solely
on racial discrimination, or that the OTS selection board  would  have
selected him for commission had an application been submitted.

The applicant also contends that his unit  commander  denied  him  the
opportunity to apply for ROTC at his next duty station (Kadena).   The
applicant  has  not  provided  any  evidence   to   substantiate   his
contention.   A  review  of  the   regulation   (AFR   53-20,   Airman
Commissioning  Programs,  date  1  July  1987),  para  29g,   required
applicants to have  a  letter  of  acceptance  from  the  AFROTC  unit
commander at the educational  institution  the  applicant  planned  to
attend,  the  recommendation  of  the  unit  commander,  based  on   a
determination the applicant was of good moral character and  possessed
the personal qualities desired  of  a  commissioned  officer.   Again,
there is no indication that the applicant was accepted by  AFROTC,  or
that based on his commander’s evaluation while assigned to Kadena, the
applicant had the qualities to be a commissioned officer, or  that  he
was denied an ROTC commission based solely on  racial  discrimination.
DPPAO recommends the applicant’s request be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
21 March 2003 and 3 April 2003, respectively, for review and response.
 As of this date,  no  response  has  been  received  by  this  office
(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 of timely file.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant  alleges  his
commanders  denied  him  entry  into  OTS  and  ROTC  due  to   racial
discrimination.  The applicant has not  provided  persuasive  evidence
substantiating his allegations.  We note the letters recommending  the
applicant for an  ROTC  commissioning  program,  however  we  find  no
evidence he was denied the opportunity to apply for this commissioning
program.  Likewise, with regard to OTS, we find  no  evidence  he  was
denied the opportunity to apply for a commission through OTS.  In view
of the foregoing, we agree with the opinion and recommendation 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.   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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2002-03702 in Executive Session on 13 May 2003 under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
                       Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
                       Mr. E. David Hoard, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Nov 02
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFRS/RSOCL, dated 11 Feb 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAO, dated 2 Apr 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Mar & 4 Apr 03.




                             MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                             Panel Chair