RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01916
INDEX CODE: 131.09
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His grade be changed from Flight Officer to Second Lieutenant.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was not aware of his rank until he buried his wife and on the
headstone she was listed as the wife of a flight officer. He
states that it is not that the rank is the most important thing in
his life but it is an injustice that needs to be corrected.
In support of the appeal, applicant submitted a copy of a
congressional inquiry from his congressman; an unsigned letter from
his former commanding officer recommending his appointment to the
grade of second lieutenant, dated 5 Mar 46; a certificate of
service, dated 8 Jun 49; a DD Form 303A, Discharge Certificate,
dated 13 Feb 51; a certificate of appreciation and a copy of
AGO Form 01254, Transcript of Military Record, dated 8 Jun 49.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 21 Apr 42, the applicant enlisted in the Army Air Corps in the
grade of private. His highest grade held was sergeant. He applied
and was selected for the Aviation Cadet Program on 5 Sep 43. He
was discharged on 26 Jun 44 to accept an appointment as a flight
officer.
On 27 Jun 44, he was appointed as a flight officer and ordered to
active duty. The record contains two efficiency reports reflecting
overall evaluation ratings of 4.0 and 4.8, respectively. On
9 May 46, he was released from active duty in the Army of the
United States in the grade of flight officer with an honorable
characterization of service due to demobilization. He was credited
with 1 year, 5 months, and 9 days of active service during this
period. His AGO Form 01254, Transcript of Military Record,
reflects his grade at the time of discharge as flight officer.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPAOO reviewed this application and recommended denial.
In accordance with Army Regulation 610-50, dated 5 Nov 42, “In
foreign theaters of operations, flight officers may be appointed by
selection, to the grade of second lieutenant in the Army of the
United States by theater commanders without regard to the period of
time a flight officer has served as such. The system for selecting
those flight officers for commissioning will be prescribed by the
theater commander….”
Applicant provided an unsigned 5 Mar 46 letter from his commanding
officer recommending him for appointment to second lieutenant. His
military personnel records reflect he received medals for service
in the Asiatic Pacific and American Theater during World War II.
There is no documentation in his records to support that the letter
recommending him for appointment to second lieutenant was processed
to the theater commander for approval.
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit
C.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Through his congressman, the applicant provided another statement
as to the circumstances surrounding his promotion to second
lieutenant.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, 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. Applicant’s
contention that he was told he had been given a direct commission
as second lieutenant is duly noted. However, other than his own
assertions, no evidence has been submitted substantiating his
claim. The available evidence reflects that he was recommended for
an appointment as a second lieutenant in March 1946. However,
there is no evidence the recommendation was processed to and
approved by the appropriate authorities. Based on the foregoing,
and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis
upon which to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s
request.
___________________________________________________________________
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-2003-01916 in Executive Session on 8 October 2003, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, undated.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAOO, dated 31 Jul 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant’s Congressman, dated 28 Aug 03,
with applicant’s response, dated 20 Aug 03.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
He also provides official correspondence indicating he was recommended for a field appointment to WOJG, that he had been the acting WOJG, and had been presented a bar to wear while in that position until his appointment was approved. Personnel orders from the 345th Airdrome Squadron, dated 15 Aug 45, reflect the applicant was acting in the position of WOJG. If the Board approves relief, his record should reflect he was appointed to WOJG and was discharged in that grade on 16 Jan 46.
He includes Army/Air Corps officers’ letters, dating from 1945-46, recommending his promotion to major and asserting he was recommended for promotion to captain on or about 5 Mar 42. 295, dated 24 Oct 44, the applicant was promoted to the grade of captain effective that date. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be promoted to the grade of major.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01189
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01368
He then served on active duty in the Air Force from 26 Mar 49 to 16 Sep 50. On 21 Nov 56, the applicant was promoted to the grade of major in the Air Force Reserve. The date that an officer was promoted to a certain grade was established as the Promotion Service Date (PSD).
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00913
Officers were not recommended for promotion until they served the minimum time in grade (TIG) requirements. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPO asserts their review of all applicable regulations regarding POW promotions and the applicant’s record and found no documentation indicating he was recommended for promotion to captain upon his return to military control or that he should have been promoted under any other provisions...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-00493
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00493 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His deceased fathers records be corrected to reflect he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC). DPSIDR located an original recommendation for the DFC dated 20 Aug 44, for the members actions on 11 Jun 44, in his official military record;...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2003-01916-2
________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-01916 in Executive Session on 16 February 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: with Exhibits. Panel Chair Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 21 Nov 03, Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 Mar 11. Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant’s Member of Congress,
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01263
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His problems probably started with his combat flying in WWII and Korea but his disability became manifested during combat flying in Vietnam in fighter and helicopter missions. The Medical Consultant states his service records show he was diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the cervical spine at age 50. Exhibit E. Letter, BCMR Medical Consultant, dated 31 Mar 05.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03153
On 30 Jun 69, he was promoted to the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel. The highest grade he held during his career was lieutenant colonel and he is receiving retired pay in the correct grade. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice that would warrant advancement of the applicant's grade on the Reserve retired list.
He stated that the DFC was awarded for completion of 35 combat flight missions. Therefore, the basis for the applicant’s claim that all other crew members of the 2 Oct 44 combat flight mission received the DFC is unsubstantiated. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPR evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration through his...