RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-00061
                                       INDEX CODE:  108.00
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                   COUNSEL: NONE

      XXXXXXXXXX                        HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The narrative reason on his DD Form 214, Armed Forces of the  United  States
Report of Transfer or Discharge, be corrected to “Permanently Retired  under
Project 703” or “Permanently Retired” instead  of  “Permanently  Retired  by
Reason of Physical Disability.”

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not retired because of physical disability,  but  was  retired  under
Project 703, in which all Reserve officers with 20  years  of  service  were
retired or separated at 20 years of service.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a personal  statement,
and copies of his retirement order,  DD  Form  214,  his  final  performance
report, and a letter from the Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  identifying
his  service-connected  disability   rating.    The   applicant’s   complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 2 September 1950, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at  the
age of 19 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a  period  of  four  years.
He was appointed an aviation cadet on  10 July  1952.   Having  successfully
completed training, he was honorably discharged from enlisted status  on  31
July 1953 and his appointment as an aviation cadet was terminated.

On 1 August 1953, the applicant was appointed a second  lieutenant,  Reserve
of the Air Force.  He  was  ordered  to  active  duty  on  that  same  date.
Following additional training, the applicant  was  granted  an  aeronautical
rating of pilot.  The applicant was progressively promoted to the  grade  of
major effective 20 December 1965 with a date of rank of  19  November  1965.
On 5 October 1955, the applicant  was  indefinitely  suspended  from  flying
status for an injury he sustained to his left eye after  being  hit  with  a
baseball.  The applicant’s records met a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)  and
the results were referred to an Informal Physical Evaluation  Board  (IPEB).
On 22 July 1970, the IPEB  found  the  applicant  was  unfit  for  continued
military service because of physical disability and recommended a  permanent
retirement with compensable rating of 40%.   The  applicant  disagreed  with
the findings and requested a formal hearing.  On 31 August 1970, the  Formal
Physical  Evaluation  Board  (FPEB)  also  found  the  applicant  unfit  for
continued military service;  however,  the  board  recommended  a  permanent
retirement with compensable rating of 50%.   The  applicant  concurred  with
the recommended findings of the  board  and  consequently,  on  8  September
1970, the Secretary of the Air Force  approved  the  recommendation  of  the
Physical Review Council that the applicant be retired under  the  provisions
of 10 USC 1201, effective 1  October  1970.   The  applicant  was  honorably
relieved from active duty effective 30 September 1970  under  the  authority
of Air Force Manual 35-4, for permanent retirement  by  reason  of  physical
disability, and was retired effective 1 October  1970.   He  had  served  20
years and 29 days on active duty.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPD recommends denial.  DPPD states the applicant was  treated  fairly
throughout the  Disability  Evaluation  System  (DES)  process  and  he  was
properly rated under federal disability guidelines as required  by  military
laws and policy in effect at the time  of  his  retirement.   It  is  DPPD’s
opinion that a correction to the applicant’s DD Form  214  is  inappropriate
as all evidence shows he  was  processed  through  the  Air  Force  DES  and
permanently retired under the authority of Title 10, USC, Section 1201,  and
AFM 35-4.

The DPPD evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded  to  the  applicant  on  13
February 2004, for review and comment within 30 days  (Exhibit  D).   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

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 an error or injustice.   After  careful  consideration  of  the
applicant's request and  the  available  evidence  of  record,  we  are  not
persuaded that the applicant’s retirement because of physical disability  in
1970  was  improper  or  contrary  to  the  provisions  of   the   governing
regulations, which implement the law.  While it may be  that  the  applicant
was  initially  identified  for   retirement   under   “Project   703,”   he
subsequently found unfit for continued military service because of  physical
disability.  It is interesting to note that  that  the  applicant  concurred
with the Formal PEB’s findings and recommendation that  he  be  retired  for
physical disability with a compensable rating of 50 percent.   Neither  does
the record reveal nor has the applicant provided  any  evidence  that  would
lead us to believe that he was not physically unfit within  the  meaning  of
the governing regulation, which implements the law.  In view  of  the  above
and absent persuasive evidence that  the  applicant  was  denied  rights  to
which entitled, appropriate regulations were not  followed,  or  appropriate
standards were not applied, we agree with the assessment by  the  Air  Force
office  of  primary  responsibility  and  adopt  their  conclusions  as  our
findings  in  the  case.   Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  request  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 this application in  Executive
Session on 13 April 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
            Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Member
            Mr. James W. Russell III, Member


The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2004-00061
was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 04.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPD, dated 4 Feb 04.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Feb 04.




                                  MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
                                                   Panel Chair