RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01541
INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) dated 12 Jan 53 and 1 Apr 53 be
corrected and he be promoted to the grades of lieutenant colonel and
colonel.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The (OERs) dated 12 Jan 53 and 1 Apr 53 are short in duration and even
shorter in facts. A combining of squadrons resulted in many officer
overages. He volunteered for remote duty to hasten his return to his
chosen career duties. The two promotion boards were at the disadvantage of
mostly incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information, to a sufficient
degree to make it impossible to act otherwise. His Ohio National Guard
report, dated 2 Jun 56, was affected by his having resigned from a full
time job for a better position with the Civil Service.
In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a
Letter of Recognition; a copy of his DD Form 214, Report of Separation form
the Armed Forces of the United States; and documentation associated with
his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. His complete submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 27
Dec 41. He was progressively promoted to the Reserve grade of major,
having assumed that grade effective 6 Jun 47. He served various
assignments in the Reserve, National Guard and on active duty, and his name
was placed on the Reserve Retired List on 31 Oct 56. A search of his
records provided no information pertaining to his promotion considerations.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The ANG/DPPI recommends denial. DPPI states that the Ohio State
Headquarters was unable to locate any records pertaining to the applicant.
However, the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC) was able to locate the
OERs in question. There is no record of the related promotion board
proceedings that could be found. Based upon the supporting documentation
provided, DPPI recommends denial. The DPPI evaluation, with attachments,
is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant states that although the DPPI letter is in accordance with
standard operating procedures, he finds it difficult to understand the loss
of seven copies of orders for his years of service in the Army and Air
Force. During World War II orders were rarely used in the
China/Burma/India area but many orders for the timeframe before February
1942 and after November 1943 are in his files and will be furnished upon
request. His complete submission, 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. After a thorough review of the evidence
of record and the evidence provided in support of his appeal, we are not
persuaded by the applicant's uncorroborated assertions that the contested
reports are not a true and accurate assessment of his performance during
the specified time period or that the comments contained in the reports
were in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.
With respect to his request that he be promoted to the grades of lieutenant
colonel and colonel, we are not ungrateful or unappreciative of his service
to this nation; however, evidence has not been presented which would lead
us to believe that he was denied rights to which he was entitled or based
on the policy that was in effect at the time, he met the qualifications
that would have made him eligible for promotion. Therefore, in the absence
of persuasive 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 BC-2003-
01541 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Michael Maglio, Member
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 21 Jul 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Aug 03, w/atchs.
ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01680
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The computation of his original DOR was not done in accordance with current DoD policy relating to the accession of Dental Corps officers in the Reserve of the Air Force. The subject policy memorandum giving the services the authority to appoint in the higher grade of captain was dated 19 Jan 01 and was effectively immediately at that time. The policy memo clearly states, “This provision is in effect...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01011
She accepted and was honorably discharged from active duty and enlisted in the Rhode Island Air National Guard. As a full time deputy, she placed her law enforcement career as a priority over her weekend drill duties in the Guard. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03037
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03037 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC), discharge be upgraded to honorable. As a result, on 23 May 1982, a review panel made up of members from the HQ --- National Guard reviewed the applicant’s case and recommended he be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02546
Members of the Board, Mr. Albert F. Lowas, Jr., Mr. Michael J. Maglio, and Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, considered this application on 17 September 2003. ALBERT F. LOWAS, JR Panel Chair Attachment: Ltr, ANG/DPPI, dtd 5 Sep 03 BC-2003-02546 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and having assured compliance with the provisions of the above regulation, the decision of the Air Force Board for Correction of...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04040
ANG/DPPI’s evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s vice commander (WADS/CV) responded on behalf of the applicant and notes that the ANG/DPPI evaluation, while factually correct, does not address circumstantial process shortfalls particular to the applicant’s case. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03736
After reviewing the evidence of record, we believe that the applicant's enlistment in the Air National Guard in the grade of Airman Basic was in accordance with ANGI 36-2002. However, in view of the fact that the applicant accrued over 30 quarter hours of college credits by the time she graduated from high school in June 2002, we believe she should be entitled to the benefit of this achievement. JOHN L. ROBUCK Panel Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office Of The...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-00868 INDEX CODE: 102.07 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to reflect that he was promoted to the grade of captain on 2 Apr 51, to the grade of major on 19 Apr 55, and to the grade of lieutenant colonel on 1 Jul 62. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00346
Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence the applicant was not properly considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a duly constituted selection board, we agree with the recommendation of the OPR and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of establishing he has...
Unfortunately, the other unit within the state held a promotion board and used the allocation during the same time of his promotion board. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the control grade roster provided by DPFP is from April 2001 and does not reflect the information that it should. This would reflect an error on the part of the monthly control grade report.
The AFBCMR has considered these previous cases: In an application dated 18 January 1965, the applicant, a captain, made the following request: The AF Form 77, USAF Officer Effectiveness Report (OER), for the period 1 August 1963 - 31 May 1964 be removed from his records. In an application dated 13 May 1972, the applicant, a major, made the following requests: a. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be...