RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00566
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to reflect his  promotion  to  the  grade  of
major and award of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) and Air  Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His records did not reflect his promotion to the grade  of  major  and
award of the DFC and AFCM.

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a   statement
indicating his selection for promotion to the grade of major.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's available military personnel  records  indicate  that  the
applicant was recalled to active duty on 10 Mar 51  in  the  grade  of
first lieutenant.

On 8 Dec 58, his name was placed on the Temporary  Disability  Retired
List (TDRL) in the grade of captain.  He was credited with  16  years,
10 months, and 13 days of total service; and, 12 years, 4 months,  and
17 days of total active service.

Applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of major, Air  Force
Reserve, with an effective date of 1 Apr 60.

On 31 May 60, his name as removed from the TDRL, and he was discharged
by reason of physical disability, with entitlement to severance pay.

On 13 Sep 60, the applicant was advised by HQ USAF that since  he  was
not in an active status on the effective date of his promotion, he was
not eligible for promotion in accordance with the law.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO stated that their research indicated the applicant was  not
medically retired from active duty, nor could his name be found on the
retired  file  or  the  National  Personnel  Records   Center   (NPRC)
microfiche.  They believe he may have been on active duty with the Air
Force Reserve and that the Air Force Personnel  Center  (ARPC)  should
make the determination whether the promotion was valid.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPR recommended denial of the applicant's request for award  of
the DFC and AFCM indicating that the applicant  did  not  provide  any
documentation showing he was recommended for or awarded the DFC,  even
after being requested to do so.  They could not verify his eligibility
for the DFC.

AFPC/DPPPR noted that the applicant's belief that he should have  been
awarded the AFCM (or Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM)) based on  the
Certificate of Achievement he provided.  According to AFPC/DPPPR, Army
regulations provided for award of the Army Commendation Medal based on
a Letter of Commendation signed by a major general or general  officer
of higher rank.  The applicant has not provided such a letter.   There
was no date on the certificate, or any documentation showing  when  or
why it was awarded.  The applicant did not provide  any  documentation
showing he was not recommended for  the  AFCM  or  AFAM,  nor  did  he
provide  any  justification  for  waiting  over  40  years  to   claim
additional decorations.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation, with attachments, is  at
Exhibit D.

ARPC/DPB recommended denial of the applicant's request  for  promotion
to the grade of major indicating that  his  separation  to  a  retired
status prior to the effective date and/or date  of  rank  negated  his
possibility of promotion.  An officer in a retired status is no longer
in an active status.  Since the applicant was not in an active status,
he was not eligible for promotion to the grade of major.

A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation,  with  attachment,  is  at
Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a  response  and
additional documentary evidence, which are attached at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's  complete
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and  the
documentation  submitted  in  support  of  his   appeal   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices
of primary responsibility (OPRs).   No  evidence  has  been  presented
which shows to our satisfaction that the applicant  was  eligible  for
promotion to the grade of major, or was entitled to award of the  DFC,
AFCM, or even the AFAM.  In view of the foregoing, and in the  absence
of  sufficient  evidence  to  the  contrary,   we   agree   with   the
recommendation of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of
establishing that he has suffered either an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, 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 BC-
2003-00566 in Executive Session on 23 Sep 03, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John L. Robuck, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Jan 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 28 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 22 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 8 Aug 03, w/atch.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Aug 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 2 Sep 03, w/atchs.




                                   JOHN L. ROBUCK
                                   Panel Chair