Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01714
Original file (BC-2003-01714.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01714
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he  was  promoted  to  the  permanent
grade of captain.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was a significant part of two wars and is entitled to his promotion
and retroactive retirement.  His records cannot be located and he  has
been searching since 1968, with no results to date.

In support of his request, the applicant submits  a  personal  letter,
copies of his DD Form 214, correspondence from the  Selective  Service
System, dated 29 April 1958, his Armed Forces Identification Card  and
additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited   in   his
contentions.  The applicant’s complete submission,  with  attachments,
is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant's military personnel  records  may  have  destroyed  in  the
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) fire on 12 July 1973.

Information extracted from applicant’s  submission  reveals  that  the
applicant had prior enlisted service.

As a member of the inactive Air Force Reserve, he was called to active
duty on 5 May 1952 in the grade of second lieutenant.  On  31  January
1958, he  was  released  from  active  duty  in  the  grade  of  first
lieutenant (Permanent) and  transferred  to  the  Air  Force  Reserve.
During this period, he completed 5 years, 8  months  and  27  days  of
active service and was credited with a total  of  eight  years,  three
months and ten days of active duty service.   His  creditable  service
for basic pay purposes was 14 years, 2 months and 15 days.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

HQ AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied.  DPPPO states that
there  is  insufficient  documentation  to  support  the   applicant’s
contention that he should have been promoted to the grade of  captain.
DPPPO cannot determine if the applicant was eligible for promotion  to
the grade of captain prior to his separation  from  active  duty.   As
such, they are unable to verify the applicant was ever recommended for
promotion.  The applicant did not provide any evidence to support  his
contention that he should have  been  promoted  to  captain.   The  HQ
AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit B.


HQ AFPC/DPP recommends the application be denied.  DPP states that the
applicant is not eligible for Reserve retired pay at age 60.  In order
to establish eligibility for Reserve retired pay under the  provisions
of Title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 12731, a member must
complete 20 years of satisfactory Federal service, with the last eight
years of qualifying service in a Reserve component.  A review  of  the
reconstructed documents indicates  that  the  applicant  completed  14
years, 2 months and 14 days of  honorable  Federal  service;  however,
only 11 years, 4 months and 10  days  of  this  time  is  satisfactory
service creditable  toward  retired  pay  eligibility.   There  is  no
indication the applicant participated or earned any service  after  31
January 1958, the date of  his  release  from  active  duty.   The  HQ
AFPC/DPP evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on  12
September 2003 for review and response.  As of this date, no  response
has been received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________

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.  We
recognize  his  service  to   the   Nation.    However,   insufficient
documentary evidence has been presented to indicate the applicant  was
eligible for promotion to the grade of captain prior to his separation
from active duty.  In addition, we note that  the  applicant  did  not
complete the requisite number of years of satisfactory Federal service
to be eligible for Reserve retired pay  at  age  60.   We,  therefore,
agree with the opinions and  recommendations  of  the  respective  Air
Force offices and adopt the rationale expressed 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.   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 Docket  Number  BC-2003-
01714 in Executive Session on 16 October 2003, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:

                  Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
                  Ms. Renee M. Collier, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 May 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Aug 03.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPP, dated 8 Sep 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Sep 03.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01237

    Original file (BC-2003-01237.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 2 April 1944, the applicant was appointed a temporary second lieutenant (2LT), Air Corps, Army of the United States, and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty. On 23 October 1945, the applicant was recommended for promotion to the grade of first lieutenant (1LT) based on his service record and because it was presumed that if he had not been a POW, he would have been promoted. He was promoted to the grade of captain, Reserve of the Air Force, with an effective date of 1 July 1955.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02740

    Original file (BC-2006-02740.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    DPPPEP concedes there were numerous changes in reporting officials; however, no procedural errors were found in the reports on file in his master personnel record and, based on the information available, DPPPEP concludes there were no gaps in his records when he met the FY77B Temporary Captains Selection Board in July 1976. Officially, the record was in compliance with the governing regulations and no gaps existed when the record met the board. Further, DPPPO can find no gaps in the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01919

    Original file (BC-2003-01919.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The HQ AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that he believes the inclusion in the MOI of the sentence, “In considering a DP recommendation, it is appropriate to consider the competitive circumstances under which the DP was awarded, as indicated on the PRF” violated the spirit of the SSB process. Based on the fact that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01304

    Original file (BC-2006-01304.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01304 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 27 Oct 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be afforded Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the Calendar Year 2005B (CY05B) Major Central Selection Board (CSB) with inclusion of a letter to the board. However, the time...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02098

    Original file (BC-2006-02098.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant has not provided a supporting statement from any of his raters. AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 18 August 2006, for review and comment within 30 days. After thoroughly reviewing the applicant's complete submission, we are not persuaded that the applicant's records...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01263

    Original file (BC-2002-01263.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant's OER/OPR profile, commencing with the report closing 25 May 86 follows: Period Ending Evaluation (2Lt) 25 May 86 1-1-1 25 Nov 86 2-2-2 (Referral Report) 24 Apr 87 1-1-1 24 Oct 87 1-1-1 (1Lt) 24 Apr 88 1-1-1 12 Jun 89 Meets Standards (Capt) 12 Jun 90 Meets Standards On 17 Oct 90, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of AFR 36-12 (Involuntary Release: Disapproved Request for Extension of Tour) and transferred to the Air Force Reserve. The relevant facts...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00396

    Original file (BC-2006-00396.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was promoted to the rank of first lieutenant while a POW, and should have been promoted to captain upon his release. Applicant has not provided any evidence that he was recommended for promotion to captain. Additionally, without the applicant’s record, they cannot determine whether he should have been promoted under any other provisions in policy or law HQ AFPC/DPPPO’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03157

    Original file (BC-2005-03157.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    2. Corrections be made to the Duty History section of his Officer Selection Brief (OSB). A review of the corresponding Officer Performance Reports clearly reflect the duty title data verified by DPAOM6. Notwithstanding the Air Force's argument that his correct duty title was reflected on his OPR we believe that the determination as to whether or not the error on his OSB had a negative impact on his selection status should be made by selection board members.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00693

    Original file (BC-2003-00693.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00693 INDEX NUMBER: 131.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to major by a special selection board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 2002B Central Major Selection Board with the Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered on him for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01189

    Original file (BC-2003-01189.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. 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...