RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03266
            INDEX CODE:  131.09

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  24 AUGUST 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show a promotion to the  grade  of  second
lieutenant (2LT).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He went to school to become a 2LT in 1945; however, he was  discharged
just before completing the training.  He was subsequently informed  by
former cadets that his name was called at graduation.   Therefore,  he
should be awarded the rank.  He  was  discharged  because  he  had  85
points, which at the time was what was needed to  be  discharged.   He
requested to stay and finish the course, but  was  informed  he  would
have to extend for an undetermined amount of time.

In support of his request, the applicant  submits  copies  of  letters
from two former  cadet  classmates,  a  diploma  and  announcement  of
completion of a Pre-Flight Engineers Training Course, his WD AGO  Form
53-55 (Enlisted Record and Report of Separation Honorable  Discharge),
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.
Therefore,   his   military   personnel   records   contain    limited
documentation.

The applicant was inducted into the  Army  of  the  United  States  on
21 November 1942 and entered active duty on 27 November 1942.  He  was
assigned to duty in the Air Corps, and was progressively  promoted  to
the grade of technical sergeant.  He performed duties as  an  Airplane
Mechanic Gunner.  On 10 September 1945, the  applicant  was  honorably
discharged in the grade of technical sergeant under the provisions  of
AR 615-365 (convenience of the government  RR  1-1  (demobilization)).
He completed a total of 1 year, 11 months and 18 days  of  continental
service and 9 months and 25 days was foreign service.

Information  extracted  from   applicant’s   submission   reveals   he
satisfactorily completed the Army Air  Forces  Training  Command  Pre-
Flight Engineers Training Course, from 5 June 1945 to 17 July 1945.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPAO recommends the  application  be  denied.   DPPAO  states
that, while the applicant shows documentation he completed  the  “Pre-
Flight” Engineer Course in 17 July 1945, there  is  no  indication  he
completed the requirements for graduation on 27 August 1945 with Class
745, Flight Engineers.  There is no indication that  either  the  Pre-
Flight Engineers Course or the Flight  Engineer  Class  were  programs
that led to a commission.  The applicant admits he  did  not  complete
the training, which he believed was required to receive a  commission.
He admits he chose not to extend his service to complete his training,
which he already admitted he believed  led  to  a  commission.   While
statements from his friends indicate he could have been a 2LT  had  he
stayed in-service, there is no indication  that  he  was  commissioned
prior to his discharge  nor  should  have  been.   The  HQ  AFPC/DPPAO
evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 13 December 2004, the applicant requested that his  application  be
withdrawn (Exhibit E).  By letter, dated 1  May  2005,  the  applicant
requested that his appeal be reopened for consideration by the Board.

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and provided the following
background   information   regarding   the   circumstances   of    the
training/commission under review.  He appeared before a  committee  of
officers who advised him  the  B-29  Flight  Engineer  Course  at  San
Antonio Aviation Cadet Center, Texas, would consist of three  six-week
courses, at the conclusion of which he would be commissioned as either
a 2LT or a warrant officer.  He completed six weeks of training at the
San Antonio Aviation Cadet Center then went to Amarillo, TX,  for  six
weeks of B-29 Pre-Flight Engineering.  After that, he went  to  Hondo,
TX, for cruise control.  On 3 September 1945, during the final week of
the course, he was called to the Orderly Room where he was told he was
going to be sent home because he had 85 points (what was required  for
discharge if you had been drafted), unless he wanted to sign up for an
indefinite time.  Since he was not  informed  of  how  long  the  time
period would be, he chose to take discharge for  family  reasons.   He
was then taken to San Antonio and put on a train to Ft.  Bragg,  where
he was discharged on 10 September 1945.  He lived up to his commitment
in attending these schools and it was  only  due  to  the  unfortunate
timing of his discharge that he was not with his graduating  class  to
receive his commission.

The applicant states that the Pre-Flight Engineering  Course  was  the
second part of the required training.  He was not  given  certificates
for the first part, which was completed at San Antonio Aviation  Cadet
Center, nor for the Cruise Control course at Hondo,  TX.   As  to  the
graduation announcement referenced for Class 745, it should  not  have
been forwarded with his original request for correction because it did
not pertain to  his  particular  class.   While  he  was  never  given
anything in writing stating he would be  commissioned  as  an  officer
after the three-part training, he had been told by  the  committee  of
officers at Courtland Field that he would either be commissioned as  a
2LT or warrant officer afterward.  His  class  actually  graduated  on
10 September  1945.   While  the  letters  from  his  friends  do  not
specifically state they heard his name called at graduation, they both
very clearly do state he made 2LT if he would have  stayed  on  active
duty.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
F.
_________________________________________________________________

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.  In
this respect, we note the applicant separated before  completing  what
he believed was the requisite three-part training program  that  would
have led to a commission.  The  letters  from  his  former  classmates
indicating he could have been a second lieutenant had he stayed in the
service do  not,  in  our  opinion,  substantiate  the  applicant  was
commissioned prior to his discharge.  We, therefore,  agree  with  the
opinion and recommendation of the appropriate  Air  Force  office  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.

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(s)   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 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 25 May and 9 June 2005, under the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
                  Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in  connection  with
AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2004-03266.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 Dec 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Available Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPAO, dated 8 Nov 04.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Nov 04.
   Exhibit E.  Letter from Applicant, dated 13 Dec 04, and
               Letter, AFBCMR, dated 6 Jan 05.
   Exhibit F.  Letter fro Applicant, dated 1 May 05, w/atchs.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair