RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00924 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

He be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel (0-5). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He received his commission as a Career Reserve Officer (CRO) upon 
graduating from Ball State University in May 65 through the Air 
Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC). AFROTC 
Distinguished Graduates were granted a Regular commission, except 
for the year groups 1965 and 1966. Those year groups received a 
Regular commission if their first supervisor recommended them. 
In this case, he was not recommended for a Regular commission 
because his supervisor did not like the fact that AFROTC 
graduates received a commission right out of college. He was 
told he would not receive a Regular commission. He appealed to 
the personnel officer, who told him there was nothing that could 
be done. 

 

His commission fell under the Reserve Officer Promotion Authority 
(ROPA). He was informed that he would be promoted to the next 
higher grade upon his retirement, which meant he would at least 
be promoted to lieutenant colonel. 

 

When the 1966-year group was considered from promotion to major 
(0-4), all Reserve officers were given a Regular commission. 
Regular commissions were more desirable because the promotion 
rates were higher. 

 

When he retired from the Reserves, he was not promoted to 
lieutenant colonel. When he asked about the promotion to 
lieutenant colonel, no one could explain to him why the promotion 
was not granted, other than, “it’s not authorized.” 

 

He believes it is an injustice to have his contract revoked after 
18 years. Additionally, the officer evaluation report (OER) 
system, which was in effect during 1974 through 1976, compounded 
this injustice. In this respect, his rater changed his rating 
from a “controlled 1” to a “controlled 2” because another captain 
had a line number for promotion to major. He quotes an article 
from the Air Force Times that validates this claim. 


 

He tried to locate information regarding the ROPA; however, he 
was unsuccessful just as he was for finding information regarding 
the change of authority to discontinue promoting for a CRO to the 
next higher grade upon retirement. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides excerpts from 
his official military personnel records. 

 

His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant retired from the Air Force Reserve in the grade of 
major on 1 Sep 85. He served 20 years, 2 months, and 25 days of 
satisfactory service. 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts 
in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

ARPC/DPTT recommends denial. DPTT states the applicant was 
promoted and retired according to appropriate laws in effect at 
the time of his retirement. The highest grade the applicant was 
promoted to and served in satisfactorily was the grade of major. 
There was no error or injustice. In addition, there is no 
provision of law that authorizes a member to be promoted to a 
higher grade at the time of retirement. 

 

The ARPC/DPTT complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The applicant responded by stating the research accomplished by 
ARPC/DPTT was not thorough. In this respect, he personally knows 
of two ROPA promotions that were made according to the same 
provisions to which he was briefed at Ball State University. He 
took the oath of office and made an agreement with the United 
States Air Force to serve under the laws and provisions at the 
time of his commission. He knows that those provisions existed 
18 years later and maintains that the research conducted was 
incomplete. An injustice occurred to him and other CROs who were 
not promoted to the next higher grade. 

 


The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 have 
carefully considered the applicant’s submission and we are not 
persuaded that the applicant’s request for retirement in the 
grade of lieutenant colonel should be granted. We note the 
disagreements the applicant has with ARPC/DPTT’s evaluation. 
However, the record does not reveal nor has the applicant 
provided any evidence to refute ARPC/DPTT’s assessment or to show 
that his retirement in the grade of major was improper or 
contrary to the governing regulations and the law. We therefore 
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the office of 
primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for 
our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an 
error or injustice. Accordingly, 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 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2011-00924 in Executive Session on 8 Sep 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Vice Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

 

The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2011-
00924 was considered: 

 


 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPTT, dated 10 May 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 May 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Vice Chair