ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-01242
            INDEX CODE:  110.00
            COUNSEL:  NO

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In the applicant's request for  reconsideration,  he  requests  he  receive
documentation stating his grade as a Second Lieutenant  (2nd  Lt)  and  his
serial number at the time of reassignment from active duty to the  inactive
reserve.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The Certificate of Service in the applicant’s records indicates  he  served
in the Army of the United States (AUS) from 4 August 1944  to  18  November
1945.

The applicant's request to receive documentation showing his grade  as  2nd
Lt and his serial number while in the inactive reserve was  considered  and
denied by the Board on 16 July 2002.  For an accounting of  the  facts  and
circumstances surrounding the applicant's request and the rationale of  the
earlier decision  by  the  Board,  see  the  Record  of  Proceedings,  with
attachments, at Exhibit F.

The applicant submitted  a  request  via  his  congressional  representative
requesting assistance in seeking reconsideration of his request  to  receive
documentation stating his rank as a 2nd Lt and his serial  number  while  in
the inactive reserve  (Exhibit G).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPB states Army Regulation 605-10,  Commissioned  Officers,  26  May
1944, indicates one of the initial qualifications for an  appointment  as  a
commissioned officer is the individual must have graduated from  an  officer
candidate school.  The regulation  further  states  that  enlisted  men  and
warrant officers who are not a graduate from officer  candidate  school  are
not eligible for an appointment.  ARPC/DPB states  that  pilot  training  is
not an officer candidate  school.   Schools  such  as  pilot  training  were
designed  to  teach  basic  and  advanced  flying  skills,  and   issue   an
aeronautical rating upon successfully completing the course.

The intent of the AAF  Letter  35-77,  29  May  1946,  which  the  applicant
provided, was to acquaint AUS Flight Officers  who  had  separated  or  were
being separated with the procedures for obtaining an appointment  as  a  2nd
Lt.  There is no indication in the applicant’s records that he  sought  this
opportunity to  obtain  a  commission  after  his  separation.   Before  the
publication of this AAF  Letter  there  were  no  provisions  for  a  flight
officer to obtain a commission.   However,  after  publication  of  the  AAF
Letter, a commission could be obtained, if  the  procedures  were  followed.
Therefore, the applicant could not be “offered” a commission; he could  only
apply for that commission.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states  he  should  have
been promoted to 2nd Lt upon completion of flight officer training, just  as
many of his peers were when  they  graduated  from  the  exact  training  he
completed without attending officer candidate school. He further states  the
Air Force has still not has addressed the reason for this  inequity  to  him
and other men in his class.

He  is  again  requesting  documents  stating  his  rank  at  the  time   of
reassignment from active duty to the inactive reserve.

His rank should have been indicated  as  a  2nd  Lt  and  not  as  a  Flight
Officer.  Page 3 of the War Department Pamphlet No.  21-4,  “Going  Back  to
Civilian Life”, states, “If you are being returned to inactive  status,  you
will receive a Certificate of Service instead of a  Discharge  Certificate.”
This should prove  he  was  transferred  from  active  service  to  inactive
service, not discharged.  He  has  no  record  of  his  final  rank  in  the
military.

He regrets he did not follow through  with  the  opportunity  to  submit  an
application in response to Letter 35-77  in  a  timely  manner.   After  his
transfer  from  inactive  service,  he  quickly  got  engrossed  in  a  very
difficult civilian life  with  many  responsibilities  that  distracted  him
taking care of his military business.  Furthermore, he did not  receive  the
Letter until a year after he was relieved from  active  duty.   He  did  not
realize the significance of ending his military career as a  Flight  Officer
rather than as a 2nd Lt.

A complete copy of the applicant’s response is attached at Exhibit J.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After careful consideration of the applicant’s reconsideration  request  and
the documentation he  submitted,  we  are  not  persuaded  to  override  the
Board's original decision.   Despite  the  applicant’s  allegations  to  the
contrary, in accordance with the governing Army Regulation, he did not  meet
one of the initial eligibility requirements to receive an appointment  as  a
second lieutenant - that being graduation from an officer candidate  school.
  Although  he  successfully  completed  pilot  training  and  received   an
aeronautical rating, that training did not qualify as an  officer  candidate
school, rather, it qualified him to be appointed as a Flight  Officer.   The
applicant has not established to our satisfaction that he  was  treated  any
differently than other similarly situated individuals.  Further, it  appears
the AAF Letter advised Flight Officers of the  proper  procedures  to  apply
for a commission after separation from active duty.  By his  own  admission,
the applicant  failed  to  follow  through  in  applying  for  a  commission
following his release from active duty.  We note the completed WD  AGO  Form
170 which the applicant submitted for our consideration, however, we  cannot
determine at this late date whether or not he  would  have  been  offered  a
commission as a second lieutenant if he had properly applied  when  eligible
to do so.  With regard to the applicant’s request for  documents  indicating
his rank and serial number upon his release from active duty,  we  note  the
Certificate of Service, which he provided, clearly reflects his  rank  as  a
Flight Officer with a serial number of T 64 814.  Apparently,  as  noted  by
the Air Force in their initial review of  this  application,  his  rank  and
serial number in the  inactive  Reserves  were  the  same  as  when  he  was
released from active duty following World War II.  It  appears  he  has  all
the information which was available to  veterans  when  they  were  released
following the War.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence  to  the  contrary
we find no compelling basis  to  warrant  favorable  consideration  of  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 AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2002-
01242 in Executive Session on 17 June 2004, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
      Ms. Carolyn B. Willis, Member
      Mr. James E. Short, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit F. Record of Proceedings, dated 16 Jul 02, w/atchs.
      Exhibit G. Applicant’s Reconsideration Request via Congressional
                 Office, dated 21 Nov 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit H. Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 2 Mar 04.
      Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Mar 04.
      Exhibit J. Applicant’s Response, dated 18 Apr 04.




                                             PEGGY E. GORDON
                                             Panel Chair