RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03067
                                             CASE NO. 4
                                             INDEX CODE:  102.03, 131.03
                                             COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  2 APRIL 2006


___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he was selected for augmentation in  the
Regular Air Force and his record be considered for promotion to the grade
of colonel in the primary zone.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He  has  provided  documents  confirming  he  was  not   considered   for
augmentation by the FY 1975 and FY 1976 boards, even though he was  still
on active duty.  He was considered by the  FY  1974  board.   He  finally
determined in April 1975 that apparently his name had been added  to  the
eligible list for the FY 1974 board.  He was told he missed selection  by
one slot.  It is egregious to him that he was not considered  by  the  FY
1975 and FY 1976 boards as he remained in active  duty  status  until  30
June 1976.

In support of his application, he provided a personal  statement,  copies
of correspondence concerning the Regular Air Force Appointment Program as
it applied to his situation, and statistical information related  to  Air
Force officer promotions during the period under review.  The applicant’s
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was a Reserve officer serving on extended active duty,  who
was relieved from active duty on 30 June 1976 and retired in the grade of
lieutenant colonel on 1 July 1976.  He was credited  with  20  years,  11
months and 19 days of active duty service.  Prior  to  his  1  July  1976
retirement, the applicant had submitted  a  previous  request  to  retire
effective 1 August 1975, under the 7-day Option  rather  than  accept  an
assignment to Osan, Korea.  The Secretary of the  Air  Force  disapproved
his request as it was considered not to be in the best interests  of  the
Air Force at that time.
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.  On 5 April 1965, as a result of the  Board’s  consideration  of
the case, the applicant’s records were corrected as follows: OER for  the
period 1 August 1963 to 31 May  1964  was  declared  null  and  void  and
removed from his records (Case 65-270).

In an application dated 2 September 1965, the applicant, a captain,  made
the following request: That the AF Form 475, Training Report rendered  on
him for the period closing  3  August  1962  which  read,  “(Applicant’s)
overall performance at SOS was low  satisfactory”  be  changed  to  read:
“(Applicant’s) overall performance at SOS was satisfactory.”  On  January
19, 1966, as a result of the  Board’s  consideration  of  the  case,  the
applicant’s records were amended to delete the word “low” (Case 65-1687).

In applications dated 4 March 1967, 11 March 1967, (2) 19 May  1967,  the
applicant, a captain,  made  the  following  requests:  Deletion  of  the
headings “Recommended Improvement Areas” and  all  comments  under  those
headings in the following two OERs: 28 June 1958 to 27 December 1958  and
28 December 1958 to 27 June 1959; Removal of OER for the period 14 August
1961 to 28 March 1962,  if  not  favorably  considered,  the  heading  in
Section V, “Recommended Improvement Areas”  and  all  comments  contained
therein be deleted from the OER; Deletion in  Section  VII,  “Recommended
Improvement Areas” and all comments contained on the OER for  the  period
1 February 1963 to 31 July 1963; Removal of all three OERs (28 June  1959
- 28 January 1960; 29 January 1960 - 27 January 1961; 28 January  1961  -
13 August 1961) or in the alternative deletion  in  Section  VII  of  all
three OERs the “Recommended Improvement Areas” and all comments contained
therein.   On  14 July  1967,  as  a  result  of  Executive  Session  the
applicant’s record were corrected as follows:   “Recommended  Improvement
Areas”, under Section V, for the periods 28 June 1958 - 27 December 1958,
28 December 1958 to 27 June 1959, 14 August 1961 - 28 March  1962  and  1
February 1963 - 31 July 1963 were deleted, and, the OERs for  the  period
28 June 1959 - 27 January 1960, 28 January 1960  -  27 January  1961  and
28 January 1961 - 13 August 1961 were declared void and removed from  his
records (Case 67-1214).

In an application dated 14 February 1968, the applicant, a captain,  made
the following request: That his two promotion passovers to the  grade  of
major be removed because in each of the two instances, his records either
lacked  essential  documents  through  no  fault  of  his  own   or   the
configuration of his file made it very unlikely he had to  have  received
an optimum chance for selection.  On 13 May 1968, the  Board  denied  his
requests (Case 68-1090).

In an application dated 22 April 1970, the applicant, a major,  made  the
following request:  His  dates  of  rank  (DORs)  for  promotion  to  the
temporary and permanent grades of major of 31 March 1968  and  15 October
1968 be changed to correspond to the DORs for similar  officers  in  1966
with the same number of active years of commissioned service.  On 22  May
1970, the Board denied his requests (Case 70-2014).

In an application dated 23 June 1970 and 18 January 1971, the  applicant,
a major,  made  the  following  requests:  That  the  two  passovers  for
promotion to the grade of temporary major that occurred in 1966 and  1967
be removed.  Alternatively, that one or the other  of  the  passovers  be
removed.  On 25 September 1970 and 24 February 1971, the Board denied his
requests (Case 70-3252 and Case 71-611).  On 17 June 1971,  2  July  1971
and 23 July 1971, the Board considered and denied  similar  appeals  from
the applicant.

In an application dated 13 May 1972, the applicant,  a  major,  made  the
following requests:

        a.  Void the failure of selection for promotion to the  temporary
grade of major by the selection boards that convened on 17  October  1966
and 16 August 1967.

        b.  Correction of record to show selection for promotion  to  the
temporary grade of major by the selection  board  which  convened  on  17
October 1966 and designation of an appropriate DOR in the temporary grade
of major.

        c.  Correction to show selection for promotion to  the  temporary
grade of lieutenant colonel by the selection board that  convened  on  26
July 1971 and designation of an appropriate DOR in the temporary grade of
lieutenant colonel.

        d.  Other further  relief  as  may  be  deemed  necessary  and/or
appropriate in order to accord him full and complete relief.

On 29 May 1972, the applicant  was  advised  the  Board  had  denied  his
requests (Case 72-2337).

In  an  application  dated  26  August  1988,  the  applicant   requested
reconsideration of his case to include current promotion to the  rank  of
colonel.  In May 1989, the AFBCMR advised him that  his  application  did
not meet the criterion for reconsideration by the Board.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s performance report ratings.

   PERIOD ENDING       OVERALL EVALUATION          CORRECTION/DATE

      8 Sep 56 (2nd Lt)      Training Report (TR)
     10 Jan 57               An Effective Officer
     27 Jun 57 (lst Lt)      An Effective Officer
   PERIOD ENDING       OVERALL EVALUATION          CORRECTION/DATE

     27 Jun 58               An Effective Officer
                             (Upgraded to “Very Fine”
                             by indorser)
   * 28 Dec 58               An Effective Officer  Reaccomplished
                                                         BCMR-14 Jul 67
   * 27 Jun 59               A Very Fine Officer         Reaccomplished
                                                         BCMR-14 Jul 67
   * 27 Jan 60               Voided Report               BCMR-14 Jul 67
   * 27 Jan 61               Voided Report               BCMR-14 Jul 67
   * 13 Aug 61               Voided Report               BCMR-14 Jul 67
   * 28 Mar 62 (Capt)  An Effective Officer  Reaccomplished
                                                         BCMR-14 Jul 67
   *  3 Aug 62               TR - Squadron Officer Reaccomplished
                                   School                BCMR-18 Jan 66
     31 Jan 63                    7-2 (9-4 the highest rating)
   * 31 Jul 63                    7-2                    Reaccomplished
                                                         BCMR-14 Jul 67
     31 May 64               Voided Report               BCMR 5 Apr 65
     31 May 65                    7-3
   # 30 Sep 65                    7-3
     30 Sep 66                    8-3
  ** 31 May 67                    9-4
                             (Upgraded from 8-4 by Indorser)
  ## 31 May 68                    9-4
     26 Oct 68 (Maj)         7-2                   Letter of
                                                         Mitigation
                                                         Added-12 Nov 70
     19 Jun 69                    9-4
     26 Nov 69                    TR - AU - in Residence
     29 Jun 70                    9-4
     24 Nov 70                    9-4
     11 Apr 71                    9-4
     11 Apr 72                    9-4
     31 Dec 72                    9-4
 *** 31 Dec 73                    9-4
     17 Jul 74 (Lt Col)           9-4
     31 Mar 75                    3-X-3 (Controlled Report)

NOTE:

   * - Corrected reports.

   # - Top report on file at the 17 Oct 66 temporary major board.

  ** - Top report on file at the 16 Aug 67 temporary and 19 Feb
       68 permanent major boards.

  ## - Top report on file at the 8 Jul 68 temporary major board.

 *** - Top report on file at the 22 Apr 74 temporary lieutenant
       colonel board and the FY 1974 (3 Jun 74) Regular Air Force
       Appointment Board.

On 31 July 2001, the applicant submitted  an  application  to  the  Board
requesting he be directly promoted to the grade of colonel, effective  on
the date of the Board’s decision.  His  application  was  considered  and
denied by the Board on 5 September 2002 (Exhibit B).

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPOO recommends denial.   DPPPOO  stated  the  applicant  was  not
eligible to meet the FY 1975 (16-Year Group) and FY 1976 (16-Year  Group)
Regular Air  Force  Appointment  Boards  since  he  had  been  previously
considered for a Regular Appointment  subsequent  to  his  selection  for
promotion to lieutenant colonel.  The eligibility  criteria  for  the  FY
1975 (16-Year Group) Regular Air Force Appointment Board stated, in part,
“lieutenant colonels with a TAFCSD  (Total  Active  Federal  Commissioned
Service Date) earlier  than  1958  who  have  successfully  competed  for
promotion to temporary lieutenant colonel but have  not  been  considered
for  Regular  Appointment  subsequent  to  selection  for  promotion   to
lieutenant colonel will be considered.”   The  FY  1976  (16-Year  Group)
Regular Air Force Appointment eligibility criteria basically mirrored the
FY 1975 (16-Year Group) board criteria except  it  considered  lieutenant
colonels with  a  TAFCSD  earlier  than  1959  versus  1958.   Since  the
applicant met the Regular Air Force Appointment Board convened on 3  June
1974 subsequent to his selection  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel
(board results were released on 29 May 1974 and he  was  promoted  on  27
June 1974) he was ineligible to be considered for  a  Regular  Air  Force
Appointment by either the FY 1975 or FY 1976 (16-Year Group) Regular  Air
Force Appointment Boards.  This evaluation is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant points to the 1975 letter he provided with his  application
indicating he was to be considered by  the  FY  1975  Regular  Air  Force
Augmentation Board.  He also refers to  a  letter  dated  17  April  1975
indicating his name was originally omitted from the FY 1974 board but was
later added.  The closeness of the timing of the various dates of  events
seems significant to him.  As to the references to the TAFCSD eligibility
criteria, he indicates he met the stated criteria for both these boards.

The applicant reiterates  his  initial  contentions  and  offers  several
mitigating circumstances for the Board’s consideration.

A complete copy of the applicant’s  rebuttal,  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.  The applicant’s assertions concerning  his
eligibility to meet the FY 1975 and FY  1976  (16-Year  Group)  Regular  Air
Force Appointment Boards have been  noted.   However,  other  than  his  own
unsubstantiated  allegations,  we  have  seen  no  evidence  indicating  the
determination he was ineligible to meet the boards in question was  contrary
to the provisions of the governing policies and regulations then in  effect.
 Additionally, there is no evidence substantiating  his  substantial  rights
were violated or he was treated differently than  other  similarly  situated
members.  Accordingly, we agree with the opinion and recommendation  of  the
Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt the  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the  victim  of  an
error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 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 issue  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 probable 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 27 April 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Ms. B. J. White-Olson, Panel Chair
            Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member
            Mr. Albert C. Ellett, Member

The following documentary evidence related to  AFBCMR  Docket  No.  04-03067
was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Sep 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records and
                 Record of Proceedings, BC-2001-02242, dated
                 25 Sep 2002, w/Exhibits.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 21 Dec 04.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jan 05.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, undated.





                             B. J. WHITE-OLSON
                                             Panel Chair