RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2009-02855

      XXXXXX                                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

Legal and equitable remediation for the racially  discriminatory  denial  of
promotion to Warrant Officer (WO), (W-1), in the  “3400”  Air  Force  Career
Field during the 1957 USAF WO Selection cycle.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

As a result of racial discrimination, he was denied promotion  selection  to
the grade of WO.  Although the Air Force no longer  uses  WO  in  their  pay
structure, some form of monetary compensation is warranted.

He devoted many hours, both on and off-duty to the development of  synthetic
warfare systems and simulators.  He would have been highly rewarded for  his
work and promoted, had he not been African-American.

In support of the appeal, the applicant submits extracts from  his  military
personnel records and previous AFBCMR case.

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

________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is a former  Tuskegee  Airmen,  who  served  honorably  in  an
enlisted status with the Regular Army from 14 April 1941 through  18 January
1946 and enlisted in the Regular Air Force (RegAF) on  22  April  1948.   He
served as a navigation and bombing training technician, Air Force  Specialty
Code (AFSC) 34370, and was progressively promoted to  the  grade  of  master
sergeant (E-7), effective and with a date of rank of 1 February 1954.

A Disposition Form, dated 2  October  1956,  concerning  the  processing  of
applicants for appointment of WOs in the RegAF provided the following:

      1.    The Air Force will tender RegAF  WO  appointments  semi-annually
to persons serving on extended active duty (EAD)  in  the  grade  of  master
sergeant to fill authorized WO vacancies by AFS,  as  reflected  on  manning
documents and within the authorized ceiling for regular WOs.

      2.    Non-RegAF WOs serving on EAD as WO will  also  be  afforded  the
opportunity to compete for regular appointments.  Existing vacancies  within
the regular WO ceiling  will  be  determined  by  the  number  that  may  be
appointed each year.

      3.     The  following  general  eligibility  requirements  govern  the
appointment of RegAF WOs, all of which must be met by an applicant:

           a. Current Status.  At the time  of  application,  an  applicant
              must be serving on EAD in the grade of either master sergeant
              or WO and have completed at least one year of active  Federal
              service in the grade of master sergeant or  higher  as  of  1
              January 1957.  A  person  serving  in  the  grade  of  “spot”
              [temporary] master sergeant may not  submit  an  application.
              For purpose of selection criteria, a  short  tour  of  active
              duty for 90 days or less is not considered as EAD.  Breaks in
              service of 90  days  or  less  between  enlistments  will  be
              regarded as continuous service.   Request  for  a  waiver  of
              service breaks of more than 90 days but less than  180  days,
              may be forwarded by Commanders of Major Air Commands  to  the
              Directorate   of   Personnel   Procurement   and    Training,
              Headquarters Air Force, for final determination.

      b.    Age and service.  To insure that each appointee can qualify  for
retirement as a WO under Section 14, Warrant Officer Act of  1954,  and  can
complete at least four years service as a Regular WO.

      (1)   On opening date of application period (1 October 1956),  a  male
applicant may not exceed the age  of  42  years  by  more  than  his  years,
months, and days of active Federal Military Service (not to exceed 15  years
of such service).

      (2)   [reference to female applicant omitted for brevity].

      (3)   All appointees must have less  than  twenty-six  (26)  years  of
total active Federal Military Service at time of appointment.

           c. Skill level.  Master sergeants must possess an  awarded  AFSC
              at the 7-skill level leading  to  the  WO  rating  for  which
              application is submitted.

      d.    Citizenship.  An applicant must  be  a  citizen  of  the  United
States.   Applicants  who  are  not  citizens  by  birth  must   furnish   a
certificate by an officer, notary public, or other person authorized by  law
to administer oaths.

      e.    Education.   An  applicant  must  be  at  least  a  high  school
graduate or have successfully  completed  a  General  Education  Development
Test (high school level).


       f.     Medical.   An  applicant  must  be  medically  qualified   for
appointment as a RegAF WO in accordance with AFM 160-1.  Report  of  medical
examination will not be submitted with application.  An  applicant  selected
for regular appointment will be notified to undergo  a  medical  examination
prior to being tendered an appointment.

      g.    Dependents.  A male applicant is not restricted with  regard  to
dependents.  [reference to female applicant omitted for brevity].

      h.    National Security.   Applicants  must  be  of  such  background,
character and reputation as to cause their appointment in the  RegAF  to  be
clearly consistent with the interest of national security.   Each  applicant
selected for appointment  must  be  the  subject  of  a  favorable  National
Security Check prior to the date of official tender of appointment.

WO authorizations were  taken  from  officer  manning  levels,  rather  than
enlisted.  Although evidence indicating the  number  of  WO  vacancies  that
existed at the time is unavailable, a  review  of  the  applicant’s  records
indicates that he met all other requirements referenced in  the  Disposition
Form, dated 2 October 1956.  Further, although not listed as a  prerequisite
for  WO  appointment,  in  1955  a  Base  Personnel   Classification   Board
determined the applicant was exceptionally well qualified  in  his  AFSC  of
34370  (navigation  and  bombing  training  technician);  and  he   received
excellent ratings on his performance reports, closing 15 April 1956  and  31
January 1957.

On 15 April 1958,  the  applicant’s  commander  notified  him  that  he  was
recommending  his   discharge   under   the   provisions   of   AFR   39-16,
Unsuitability, citing a psychiatric diagnosis and a record of complaints  of
alleged  racial  discrimination  which  investigation  had   found   to   be
unfounded.  However, based on a  letter  from  the  Chief,  Neuropsychiatric
Service, the discharge action was suspended so the applicant could be  given
further psychiatric evaluations.  On or about 5  July  1958,  the  applicant
was  reassigned  from  the  Wright  Air  Development  Center,  Air  Materiel
Command, Air Research and Development Command, Wright-Patterson AFB  to  the
USAF Hospital at Wright-Patterson AFB, where he remained for over 200  days;
however, there is no record of treatment.

On 11 February 1959, he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired  List
(TDRL), in the grade of master sergeant (E-7), with a disability  rating  of
50  percent,  for  paranoid  personality,  chronic,  severe,  manifested  by
suspiciousness and resentfulness toward  authority  figures,  prevarication,
impulsivity and dependency accompanied by  feelings  of  rejection  and  the
inability to relate to people or to profit from  interpersonal  experiences.
He  was  subsequently  removed  from  the  TDRL  and  medically   discharged
effective 9 May 1963

The applicant’s records contain  a  plethora  of  correspondence  concerning
alleged  instances  of   bias,   mal-treatment,   segregation   and   racial
discrimination, throughout his military career, to include but  not  limited
to, being denied service by a Caucasian barber at Barksdale  AFB;  exclusion
of African-American service members at a  dance  held  in  a  Barksdale  AFB
hanger; not assigned work in his AFSC; being denied admittance at  a  Forbes
AFB NCO club with his then Caucasian fiancée; a  base  chaplain  denying  he
and his Caucasian wife   the  opportunity  to  have  their  infant  daughter
baptized in the base chapel; and the denial of deployment  of  all  African-
American members of his unit along with the other members of  the  unit  who
had been re-deployed to England.

Applicant’s Performance Profile, follows:

       PERIOD ENDING         OVERALL EVALUATION

          18 Jan 55                  Outstanding
          15 Apr 56                   Excellent
          31 Jan 57                   Excellent
           1 Sep 57                   Very Good
          31 Jan 58                   Very Good

During the period in question,  Warrant  Officers  (W-1  through  W-4)  were
appointed by the Secretary of  the  Air  Force.   Army  Regulation  611-112,
provided the first published definition for a WO as,  “…  a  highly  skilled
technician who is provided to fill those positions above the enlisted  level
which are too specialized in  scope  to  permit  effective  development  and
continued  utilization  of  broadly  trained,  branch  qualified  commission
officers.”  Upon the passage of the  Military  Pay  Act  of  1958,  Congress
authorized the creation of two  new  senior  enlisted  ranks,  i.e.,  senior
master sergeant (E-8) and chief master sergeant (E-9).  In view of this,  in
1959,  the  Air  Force  discontinued  the  appointment  of  WOs  and   their
authorizations were restructured into the  senior  enlisted  grades  of  E-7
through E-9.

On 30 July 1962, the Board  considered  the  applicant’s  request  that  his
records be corrected to show  that  he  was  not  placed  on  the  TDRL  and
thereafter removed from the TDRL and discharged but was restored  to  active
duty on 11 February 1959 and retired for length of service on 17 July  1963;
and that all records pertaining to  his  discharge,  including  medical,  be
expunged from his records and found the  facts  and  information  before  it
failed to establish an error or injustice and denied his  application.   The
Board favorably considered the applicant’s request for a formal hearing.

On 12 May 1965, in a formal hearing, the Board reconsidered the  applicant’s
request and determined that  he  was  fit  for  duty  at  the  time  of  his
placement on the TDRL and recommended that his records be corrected to  show
that he was not placed on the TDRL and thereafter removed from the TDRL  and
discharged but was restored to active duty on 11 February 1959  and  retired
for length of service on 17  July  1963.   However,  the  Board  denied  his
request that all records pertaining to his discharge,  to  include  medical,
be expunged from his  records.   A  complete  copy  of  the  Proceedings  is
attached at Exhibit B.

________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

AFPC/JA recommends denial based on the applicant’s failure  to  timely  file
his application and even if the time standards are waived and  the  case  is
considered on its merits, they recommend denial  based  on  his  failure  to
show by a preponderance  of  the  evidence  any  error  or  injustice.   The
alleged error or injustice occurred over 50 years ago and there is  evidence
the applicant was aware of this in 1958.  There is also evidence that  shows
he was aware of the Board process in 1961.   However,  he  has  provided  no
explanation for the delay in filing or why it would be in  the  interest  of
justice for the Board to  waive  the  time  limits.   His  delay  in  filing
precludes the Air Force from conducting a complete  review  of  the  claimed
error.  Outside of the assertions of  the  applicant  and  his  spouse,  the
record does not show whether he was qualified  for  promotion  or  selection
for WO, and if this was the reason for his non-selection.  In  addition,  if
the applicant were to be successful, his delay  would  result  in  excessive
back pay or retired pay as a result of an alleged  error  or  injustice  not
raised for over 50 years.

The applicant has provided no evidence to support  his  assertions  that  he
was qualified, considered, and denied promotion, or was  qualified,  applied
and listed for selection for WO.  Although two of the documents provided  by
the applicant indicated that he initiated the  WO  application  process,  he
did not provide any documents, statements, or other evidence  to  show  that
he completed the application,  was  deemed  qualified,  and  listed  for  WO
selection.  Further, he provides no evidence to support his contention  that
he was denied promotion and WO selection due to  racial  discrimination  and
identifies no incident or individual(s) on which his  allegation  is  based.
The military records contain 1958 correspondence from his spouse,  asserting
that although qualified, he did not meet the 1958-1959 SMSgt board,  because
he was not recommended and was qualified for, and had  a  valid  application
on file, for selection for WO.  Although the applicant submitted a  one-page
excerpt from a  document  that  references  “the  Board”  and  discusses  WO
selection, it is not clear what the document is and  the  context  in  which
the  statements  were  made.   Moreover,  the  military  records  show   the
1961/1962 Board applications only  addressed  the  TDRL  placement  and  his
request to expunge the records.  There is no evidence  that  he  raised  the
promotion and WO selection issues until a 2008 congressional  inquiry.   His
military   records   further   indicate   the   applicant   alleged   racial
discrimination on  a  number  of  occasions  during  his  military  service;
however, none of the allegations were substantiated.   Prior  to  completing
the advisory, they tried to locate the  previous  Board  decision;  however,
Board decisions were not archived prior to 1977.

The complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPSIPR recommends denial of his request for WO appointment.
The disposition form, provided by the applicant, lists  general  eligibility
requirements and indicates WO appointments will be made to  fill  authorized
WO vacancies by AFSC, as reflected  on  manning  documents  and  within  the
authorized ceiling for Regular WOs.  Although it appears the  applicant  met
the eligibility requirements for WO  appointment  based  on  this  document,
only the first page was provided and without the  complete  document  it  is
unknown whether additional requirements existed.  It is also unknown  as  to
what specialties were authorized WO appointments and what the authorized  WO
ceilings were at the time.  However, based on the statement in the  December
1958 letter regarding Fiscal Year 1959 (FY 59) WO appointments,  it  appears
the  lack  of  vacancies  may  have  presented  his  appointment  as  a  WO.
Additionally, the fact the Air Force discontinued its WO  program  in  1959,
may have also led to his not being tendered a WO appointment.  Although  his
military records do not indicate when/if  he  applied  for  WO  appointment,
they contain a 7 December 1958 letter from his spouse  to  her  congressman,
which references a response to a previous  congressional  inquiry  in  which
she was advised that he was qualified and eligible for  WO  appointment  but
his application was still on file and yet valid for FY 59  WO  appointments.


The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Despite the incessant efforts he  made  as  a  non-degree  engineer  to  the
development  of  synthetic  warfare  devices  for  the  training  of  combat
aircrews, he was the victim of discrimination while assigned to  Wright  Air
Development Center, Ohio, as indicated in his  records.   In  light  of  the
volume  of  evidence,  a  personal  hearing  is  warranted.   The  racially-
motivated denial of WO selection has  had  a  continued  legally  measurable
deleterious effect through the years.  He was  advised  there  was  improper
involvement by senior leadership at Headquarters Strategic Air  Command  (Hq
SAC), to conspire to get him out of the Air Force  for  unsuitability  which
blocked his selection to WO.  A national issue arose out of this and he  was
asked to personally appear before members of Congress and the  Senate.  This
issue was withdrawn from litigation in the United States  Court  of  Federal
Claims based on a promise by the Department of  Justice  attorney  that  was
never kept.

In further support  of  the  appeal,  the  applicant  provides  a  newspaper
article concerning a cross-burning incident that occurred  four  doors  away
from his residence, extracts  from  his  military  records,  and  copies  of
documents from the Air Force Office of  Special  Investigations.   He  notes
that he was threatened  by  the  sheriff  for  revealing  the  cross-burning
incident to his member of Congress.

In further support of his appeal, the applicant provides extracts  from  his
military records, to include  an  Inspector  General  Investigation  of  the
applicant’s  allegations  of  mistreatment  during   interviews   with   the
Commander and Executive Officers of the 91st Strategic  Reconnaissance  Wing
at Barksdale AFB, LA; and  a  2  Oct  56  Disposition  Form  concerning  the
processing of applicants for Regular Air Force WO appointment.

The applicant’s complete responses, with  attachments,  are  at  Exhibits  F
through H.

________________________________________________________________

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.  After thoroughly  reviewing  the  evidence
of record, to include the findings and conclusions of the 1965  decision  of
this Board, we are not  persuaded  the  applicant  has  met  his  burden  of
proving that he was denied Warrant Officer  (WO)  selection  due  to  racial
discrimination.  The applicant must realize the Board is  without  authority
to  award  monetary  compensation,  except  that  which  arises   from   the
correction of a military record, i.e.,  retroactive  retirement,  promotion,
etc.  Although the Air Force discontinued WO appointment in 1959, the  Board
could, on behalf of  the  Secretary,  correct  the  applicant’s  records  to
reflect that he was retroactively appointed a WO  in  order  to  correct  an
error or to remove an injustice from his records.   However,  based  on  the
evidence of record, we find no basis to do so here.   In  this  respect,  we
note that it appears the applicant met all prerequisite requirements for  WO
appointment during cycle 1957; however, we have no  way  of  determining  at
this late date what WO vacancy authorizations existed at that  time  in  his
Air Force Specialty and  how  many  considerees  were  selected  during  the
cycle,  as  all  such  records  have  been  destroyed  in  accordance   with
established records management disposition procedures.   In  view  of  this,
while the applicant  may  have  faced  discrimination  during  his  military
career, we have no way of speculating as to why he was not selected  for  WO
appointment.  Moreover, in 1965 this Board provided  him  full  and  fitting
relief by correcting his records to show that he was not placed on the  TDRL
and subsequently separated but was  instead  retained  on  active  duty  and
retired after completing 20 years of active service.  We  are  compelled  to
note his most recent request was most ripe for consideration and would  have
been more compelling in 1965, when the Board considered his  other  requests
and all relevant records concerning the  vacancy  authorizations  for  cycle
1957 were still available.  In fact, during their  1965  deliberations,  the
Board noted that while the  applicant  was  assigned  to  Keesler  AFB,  his
supervisor attempted to give him an  Excellent  Efficiency  Rating  but  the
Officer-in-Charge rated him as Very Satisfactory knowing that  a  rating  of
Excellent or better would have  qualified  him  for  WO  appointment.   Upon
reviewing this comment in the 1965 proceedings, the  applicant  should  have
pursued WO appointment at that time while the issue was fresh in  the  minds
of the previous Board and while pertinent records still  existed.   However,
despite this comment, after a review of the available  evidence  before  us,
we do not find it sufficiently substantive for us to conclude  that  he  was
denied WO appointment due  to  racial  discrimination.   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 issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

________________________________________________________________



The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number  BC-2009-
02855 in Executive Session on 23 February 2011, under the provisions of  AFI
36-2603:

            XXXXX, Panel Chair
            XXXXX, Member
            XXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 09, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/JA, dated 8 Feb 10, w/atchs.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPSIPR, dated 9 Feb 10.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 12 Feb 10.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Mar 10, w/atch.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 27 Jul 10, w/atchs.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 Sep 10, w/atchs.





                                   Panel Chair