RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2004-03732
            INDEX CODE:  131.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  11 APRIL 2006

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of captain.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was rejected for promotion to captain because the  efficiency  index  for
his entire period of active service  was  less  than  minimum  required  for
promotion.  The efficiency index ratings for incidental  assignments  should
not  be  included  because  insufficient  time  is  available   for   proper
evaluation.  He  had  numerous  incidental  transfers  within  his  military
career.  His longest was 14 months overseas where he served  as  a  Squadron
Navigator.  He also served  five  months  of  navigation  training  and  ten
months  of  pilot  training  for  which  the  efficiency  index  should   be
considered as graduation.  His final three months after pilot training  were
flying student navigators where his previous navigator rating was a plus.

In support of the application, the  applicant  submits  personal  statements
and correspondence  extracted  from  his  military  personnel  record.   The
applicant's complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 4 August 1945, the applicant was relieved from active duty in  the  grade
of first lieutenant.  Applicant was credited with 1 year, 11 months  and  11
days of continental service, and 1 year, 1 month  and  19  days  of  foreign
service.

The applicant’s records indicate he was assigned to duties in  the  Asiatic-
Pacific Theater of Operations on 2 November 1942 and performed duties  as  a
pilot.  He  participated  in  the  Asiatic-Pacific  Theater  of  Operations,
Guadalcanal and Northern Solomons campaigns, and flew  55  combat  missions.
His decorations include the Asiatic-Pacific  Theater  Campaign  Ribbon,  the
Distinguished Flying Cross with one oak leaf cluster, the  American  Defense
Service Medal, and the Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted  from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the  letter  prepared  by
the appropriate office of the Air Force at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ  AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  denial.   DPPPO  states  on  31  October   1945,
authority for terminal  leave  promotions  was  granted  to  all  separation
centers.  Effective 13 December 1945, officers who served 18 months time-in-
grade as a first lieutenant and attained a minimum efficiency index  of  40,
were eligible for promotion to captain on the first day of  terminal  leave.
In addition, officers being relieved from active  duty  that  had  not  been
promoted while on active duty and had served 2  years  in  grade  were  also
authorized terminal leave promotions.  DPPPO explains,  in  the  applicant’s
case, he was promoted to first lieutenant while on active duty.

DPPPO states efficiency index was based on the available efficiency  ratings
for  all  available  efficiency  ratings  for  all  active  service  in  all
commissioned grades subsequent to 16 September  1940  and  not  on  selected
ratings.  Exceptions or modifications of the efficiency  index  requirements
were not permissible.

DPPPO notes on 29 July  1945,  the  applicant  requested  a  review  of  his
records to determine if promotion to captain was warranted.  On  19 December
1946, the Adjutant General  denied  his  request  based  on  his  efficiency
index, for the entire period of service, being less than 40.   Subsequently,
on 27 August 1947, the  applicant  requested  his  records  be  reviewed  to
determine if promotion was warranted.  On 21  November  1947,  the  Adjutant
General again denied his request  for  promotion  based  on  his  efficiency
index being less than the minimum required for promotion.

DPPPO states the application may be dismissed under the  equitable  doctrine
of laches, which denies relief to one who has unreasonably  and  inexcusably
delayed in asserting claim.  Laches consist of  two  elements:   inexcusable
delay  and  prejudice  to  the  Air  Force  resulting  therefrom.   In   the
applicant’s case, he  waited  over  50  years.   DPPPO’s  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In  his  response  dated  5  March  2005,  the  applicant   reiterated   the
information regarding his months of training and  service,  and  provides  a
summary of his complete military history (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 probable  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant’s  contentions
concerning the military’s use of  the  efficiency  index  in  the  promotion
process are noted; however, we do not find these  uncorroborated  assertions
sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the  rationale   provided   by   the
appropriate office of the Air Force.  The record reveals the  applicant  was
promoted to the grade of first lieutenant approximately one year  after  his
entry on active duty.  Following his separation, pursuant to  his  requests,
his  records  were  twice  reviewed  for  a  determination  concerning   his
eligibility for a terminal  leave  promotion  to  the  grade  captain.   The
applicant has provided no evidence showing he was recommended for  promotion
and the recommendation was improperly denied or he was  treated  differently
from other similarly situated  members.   We  therefore  have  no  basis  to
overrule the decisions made concerning his promotion requests  in  1946  and
1947, when the decision-making officials had  a  greater  knowledge  of  and
access to the relevant regulations and policies than do  we  some  60  years
after the contested events took place.  Our decision in this  matter  is  in
no way a reflection of the esteem in which we hold the  applicant’s  service
to the Nation.  Nevertheless, in view of the above and  in  the  absence  of
persuasive evidence showing his rank at separation was erroneous or  unjust,
the applicant’s request is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice 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 14 June 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
                 Mr. Vance E. Lineberger, Member


The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
BC-2004-03732:


     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 04, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 4 Feb 05.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Feb 05.
     Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 5 Mar 05.




                                   MICHAEL J. NOVEL
                                   Panel Chair