RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02070
INDEX CODE: 136.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NOT INDICATED
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to captain on a date prior to his discharge.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He should have been promoted prior to his discharge.
In support of his request, the applicant provided documentation associated
with a Congressional inquiry.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Data extracted from the available military personnel records indicates the
applicant was appointed a second lieutenant on 15 January 1943. He was
promoted to first lieutenant on 6 November 1943. He was relieved from
active duty on 17 April 1946 and from 18 April 1946 to 31 December 1953 he
served in the Officer Reserve Corps, not on Extended Active Duty. From
1 January 1954 to 31 March 1955, he was on the Indefinite Reserve Status
(IRS) list and from 1 April 1955, he was transferred to the Inactive Status
List Reserve Section (ISLRS).
On 6 August 1957, applicant was honorably discharged from all appointments
in the Air Force as a first lieutenant.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPO recommends denial. DPPO states the applicant has not provided
any documentation to support his contention that he was promoted to the
grade of captain. There is nothing in his record to show he was
recommended for promotion to captain. All correspondence he received
between 1946 and 1957 reflects his grade as first lieutenant.
All governing directives for promotions at that time were reviewed and it
cannot be determined if the applicant would have been eligible for a
terminal leave promotion because of insufficient documentation. In
December 1945, Separation Centers, Points and Bases were given the
authority to process terminal leave promotions. If the applicant was
eligible and recommended for promotion either before or while on terminal
leave, he would have been notified at that time.
This case should be dismissed as untimely. The very reasons for having a
statute of limitations, like that found in 10 U.S.C. 1552 and AFI 36-2603,
include the fact that stale claims cannot be adequately addressed because
the passage of time has resulted in the loss or destruction of the
records/documentation needed to adjudicate the claim. That is the case
here. The burden of proof rests with the applicant. When the
records/documentation no longer exist to verify his allegations, there is
no basis upon which to grant relief. Hence, it would not be in the
interest of justice to waive the time limit and decide the case on its
merits. The application should therefore be denied as having failed to
meet the requisite time requirement.
DPPPO’S complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 14 September 2007, the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 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 a thorough review of the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission, it is our opinion that
relief is not warranted in this case. The applicant's contentions are duly
noted; however, other than his own assertions he has provided no evidence
which sustains his burden of proof of either an error or injustice. In
view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the
existence of an error or injustice; the application was denied without a
personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2007-
02070 in Executive Session on 18 December 2007, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Mr. Anthony P. Reardon, Member
Ms. Marcia Jane Bachman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 July 2007, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 22 August 2007.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 September 2007.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 October 2007.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBC, dated 30 October 2007.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03732
The efficiency index ratings for incidental assignments should not be included because insufficient time is available for proper evaluation. 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. Effective 13 December 1945,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02761
The applicant’s records indicate he was promoted to first lieutenant; however, there are no promotion orders available to provide his date of rank (DOR) and effective date of the promotion. They could not determine if the applicant met the time-in-grade requirements to be recommended for promotion to the grade of captain since his records did not reflect when he was promoted to first lieutenant. Novel, Member The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01237
On 2 April 1944, the applicant was appointed a temporary second lieutenant (2LT), Air Corps, Army of the United States, and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty. On 23 October 1945, the applicant was recommended for promotion to the grade of first lieutenant (1LT) based on his service record and because it was presumed that if he had not been a POW, he would have been promoted. He was promoted to the grade of captain, Reserve of the Air Force, with an effective date of 1 July 1955.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01781
According to HQ AFPC/DPPPO’s advisory opinion at Exhibit F, the applicant was considered for the grade of colonel by the following promotion boards: 20 Jun 60 Permanent Colonel (Regular) 12 Jun 61 Regular Colonel 27 Nov 61 HQ USAF Temporary Colonel 11 Jun 62 Regular Colonel 3 Dec 62 Temporary Colonel Nomination 10 Jun 63 Regular Colonel 8 Jul 63 Temporary Colonel Nomination, FY64 14 Sep 64 Central Temporary Colonel, FY65 24 May 65 Regular Colonel 13 Sep 65 Central Temporary Colonel, FY66 20...
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON, DC Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR 97-00826 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF’ OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: 1996. ent of the Air Force be considered for ection Board for the nvened on 9 September Director Air Force Review Boards Agency U AIR FORCE BOARD FOR...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01892
Based on the approved findings of the Army Retiring Board that the applicant was permanently incapacitated for military service, that such incapacity was the caused by and the result of an incident of service, and that his disability was combat incurred or the result of an explosion of an instrumentality of war in the line of duty, the applicant was released from active duty in the grade of first lieutenant on 7 September 1947. They also state there is no documentation to show the applicant...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: It took him approximately 7 years to be promoted from the grade of first lieutenant to the grade of captain and 7½ years to be promoted from the grade of major to the grade of lieutenant colonel. As for the delay in his promotion to lieutenant colonel, the applicant has not provided any evidence to show there was an error or an injustice done. Additionally, there was no requirement to show the report...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03241
He states, since there are no records available to support a promotion as a member of the 55th Fighter Group, in 1944, he requests that he receive a promotion to first lieutenant, effective 24 December 1944 as authorized by Congress in 2001. Since he would then be a first lieutenant, at the time of his promotion at Wright-Patterson AFB, he requests that promotion, effective that date, be to captain. As stated, although the applicant was promoted to first lieutenant, we do not have any...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01835
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-01835 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 14 DEC 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the Calendar Year 2006C (CY06C) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be corrected to reflect his correct assignment history and that he...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01820
DPAMW recommended denial and stated in order to meet a Medical Corps selection board, an individual must be a member of that competitive category--Medical Corps. AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that his complaint goes into detail on the current privileging and job responsibilities of podiatrists and how...