RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2003-01189
            INDEX CODE 102.02  131.00
            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted and retired in the grade of colonel  effective  on  his
retirement date of 31 Aug 75.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He should have been promoted from 1st lieutenant (1LT) to captain when
he was recalled from  the  Air  Force  Reserve  (USAFR)  in  1951.  He
recently learned from other retired officers who were called to active
duty from the Reserve in 1951, as he was, that there was  a  directive
sent to all active Reserve units stating all eligible Reserve officers
were to be promoted or submitted for promotion  prior  to  recall.  He
knows of no members of the 89th Troup Carrier Wing (89 TCW)  receiving
or being submitted for promotion. The directive was either  overlooked
or ignored by the staff busily processing and assigning the Reservists
recalled. He was eligible for promotion at the time and  was  assigned
to a captain’s position as  flight  commander.  However,  he  was  not
promoted to captain until 1954. This delay  affected  all  eligibility
for subsequent promotions on active duty and  resulted  in  his  being
three years older when finally considered for promotion. When  he  was
first eligible for promotion to colonel, a  colonel  at  Randolph  AFB
personnel reviewed his records and hinted his  age  might  hinder  his
promotion despite his outstanding record.  One  more  retired  colonel
will not have any effect on active duty promotions or seriously impact
the Air Force budget. He’s almost 79 years old and thinks he  deserves
the title of colonel for his remaining years.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was appointed a 2nd lieutenant (2Lt), Air Corps,  on  23
May 44 and was reappointed to a 1LT on 9 Jan 46. He was released  from
active duty (demobilized) on 21 Feb 46.

He was mobilized again to active duty on 1 May 51 and executed a USAFR
Oath of Office as a 1LT on that date. An indefinite USAFR  appointment
was tendered on 18 Dec 52. He was promoted to the temporary  grade  of
captain on 15 Mar 54.

While still on active duty, he was  offered  a  Regular  USAF  (RegAF)
commission as a 1LT, which he accepted on 28 Mar 55. He  continued  to
serve in his temporary grade  of  captain.  He  was  promoted  to  the
permanent grade of captain on 13 Jan 58.

The applicant was  promoted  to  the  permanent  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel (LTC) on 13 Jan 72.

The applicant’s performance reports from 18 Mar 52 through 31  Mar  75
are at Exhibit B and reflect that, out of all the  reports,  six  were
both “firewalled” in all performance factors and received the  highest
overall ratings.

The applicant retired in the grade of LTC on 1 Sep 75 with 27 years, 3
months and 24 days of active service.

HQ ARPC/DPB advised HQ AFPC/DPPPO via email on 24 Jun  03  that  there
was nothing in their regulations, message traffic, etc.,  contemporary
with that time addressing promotion prior to  going  on  active  duty.
ARPC advised that at the time the applicant  was  returned  to  active
duty,  the  Reserve  was  transitioning   from   WWII/War   Department
promotions to the Reserve Officer Promotion Act (ROPA). All promotions
were “suspended” for a while unless very  specific  requirements  were
met, such as having a fully paid billet in the Reserves.  Further,  if
the officer was training for points  only,  there  were  no  promotion
opportunities.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPB notes the letter sent to the applicant offering the  RegAF
commission  was  specifically  addressed  to  “captain”  offering  the
commission as a 1LT. 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. His appointment as a RegAF officer in 1955 established  his
Air Force career. He accepted the USAF appointment, fully informed  of
his USAF grade and DOR. All future promotions occurred  based  on  his
time in grade, seniority and selection by promotion boards.  Once  the
applicant accepted the USAF appointment, he no longer had  competitive
promotion standing in the USAFR. Denial is recommended.

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 had been, he
would have been promoted to colonel. Denial is recommended.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant asserts he never received a promotion order for  captain
in the USAFR. He was promoted to temporary captain on active  duty  on
15 Mar 54. He accepted a commission as a 1LT RegAF on 28  Mar  55  but
continued serving as a temporary captain on active duty.  Three  years
of earlier eligibility would most certainly affect  succeeding  future
promotions. His appeal may be untimely but that  is  because  he  just
recently became aware of the 1951 recall policy for active Reservists.
A  thorough  examination  of  his  performance  reports,  letters   of
commendation,  wartime  service  and  decorations,   general   officer
indorsements, etc. will prove he was well qualified for  promotion  to
colonel.

A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit 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. After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that he should be retired  in  the  grade  of  colonel.  The
applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find  these
uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and   by   themselves,   sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air  Force.  The
applicant was recalled to active duty in 1951 as a 1LT and he accepted
the USAF appointment to the Regular Air Force in 1955  fully  informed
of his USAF grade  and  date  of  rank.  Once  he  accepted  the  USAF
appointment, he no longer had competitive promotion  standing  in  the
USAFR.. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the  Air  Force
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our  decision  that
the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of  having  suffered
either an error or an injustice. In  view  of  the  above  and  absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought.

_________________________________________________________________

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  this  application  in
Executive Session on 10 September 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
                 Ms. Cheryl Jacobson, Member
                 Ms. Martha Maust, Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01189 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 03, w/atch.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 24 Apr 03.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Jul 03.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 03.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Aug 03.





                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Chair