RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01246
            INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he was commissioned as an  officer  in
the Air Force and retired from the Reserves as a high ranking  officer,
rather than a master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied a commission due to physical  disqualification;  however,
he believes the evaluating physician made an error.

In support of his  application,  the  applicant  provided  a  personnel
statement, two  letters  from  the  Veterans  Administration  Hospital,
Atlanta Georgia and excerpts from his military  personnel  and  medical
records.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 10 Nov 48,  for  a  term  of
three years. He then entered the University of Georgia Reserve  Officer
Training Corp (ROTC) Program.  On 4 Aug 55, he  was  given  a  physical
examination  in  preparation  for   submitting   an   application   for
appointment in the Air Force Reserves as a  commissioned  officer.   He
was  classified  as  not-qualified  for  commission  by  the  examining
physician on 6 Aug  55,  due  to  a  history  of  diffuse  goiter  with
hyperthyroidism. He continued to serve in the Reserves in  an  enlisted
capacity, was progressively promoted to the grade  of  master  sergeant
and retired in that grade on 9 Jan 74. He served a total of 25 Years, 1
month and 29 days service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1E recommends denial.  A1E states in part that they are unable to
substantiate the applicant’s claim due to the extended period  of  time
that has elapsed since the alleged occurrence.

The complete AFRC/A1E evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant through, his Congressman, submitted a notarized  copy  of
his academic record from the University of Georgia.   In  addition,  he
submitted documentation relative to his contention to  further  support
his case.

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

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAF/JA recommends denial.  JA states in part, the  applicant  has  not
met his burden of  proving  that  the  non-commissioning  decision  was
erroneous or that it  amounted  to  an  injustice.   The  authority  to
commission or not commission someone is vested in Air  Force  accession
authorities, based on medical and other inputs.  This authority is  not
vested in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) physicians.

More  to  the  point,  at  the  time  he  would  otherwise  have   been
commissioned,   the   applicant   was   medically    unqualified    for
commissioning.  The fact that the medical impediment  to  commissioning
subsequently went away in  the  opinion  of  VA  physicians,  does  not
obligate the Air Force to reverse its  decision,  for  several  obvious
reasons.

First,  the  Air  Force  is  entitled  to  be   conservative   in   its
determination  not  to  risk  recurrence  of  previously  disqualifying
medical problems, even if that position was “speculative”  as  alleged.
There is no right to a commission and the Air Force  has  the  inherent
right to be highly selective.

Secondly, the needs of the Air Force for commissioned officers were, of
course, continually changing, and a myriad of factors such as personnel
utilization, numbers of vacancies, and numbers of applicants would  all
have been perfectly legitimate reasons for the Air Force not to reverse
its earlier decision.

The applicant has provided no evidence whatsoever that  the  Air  Force
treated him differently than it did others who wanted commissions, that
the Air Force did not follow its own rules, either by  violating  them,
by applying the wrong standards of analysis, or even  by  ignoring  its
rules so as to act arbitrarily and capriciously, or even that  the  Air
Force’s  rules  were  somehow  unfair.   It  is  unfortunate  that  the
applicant was repeatedly determined to be non-commissionable, but  that
simply does not translate into an injustice.

The complete USAF/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force additional evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 21 Sep 07, for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of
this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Evidence has  not  been  provided
which would lead us  to  believe  that  the  rules  of  the  applicable
regulations, which implement the law, were inappropriately  applied  or
that he was denied rights to which he  was  entitled.   Therefore,  the
Board agrees with the opinions and recommendations  of  the  Air  Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopts  their  rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim  of
an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive  evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief  sought  in
this application.

_________________________________________________________________

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  Docket  Number  BC-2007-
01246 in Executive Session on 4 November 2007, under the provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. James R. Russell III, Panel Chair
            Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
            Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFRC/A1E, dated 4 May 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 07.
      Exhibit E. Letter, Congressman, dated 4 May 07, w/atchs.
      Exhibit F. Letter, AF/JA, dated 11 Sep 07.
      Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, 21 Sep 07, w/atchs.





                                   JAMES R. RUSSELL III
                                   Panel Chair