AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-01437 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His date of commission be changed from 27 Oct 51 to 29 Sep 50. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
He should have been offered a commission at the time he enlisted 
to attend Aviation Cadet training, based on his prior service in 
the  Navy  Reserve,  and  because  he  had  completed  his  Bachelor’s 
Degree. 
 
After  about  two  weeks  into  training  he  found  out  that  another 
cadet was offered a commission because he had a degree and was 
sent to Officer Candidate School (OCS). 
 
Had  he  been  offered  a  commission  at  the  proper  date,  he  would 
have been a major in 1958, with higher ranks occurring after his 
combat tours, resulting in earlier dates of promotions.  Based on 
his combat record and assignments, where he would have been the 
senior officer, he would have garnered one star and possibly two. 
 
He  should  have  received  a  Reserve  commission  no  later  than  the 
date he reported for pilot training (29 Sep 50) and maybe as far 
back  as  20 Dec  49.    He  did  not  question  this  date  back  then, 
because he was taught not to question a higher authority. 
 
In 1959, when he was to be considered for promotion to the grade 
of  major  in  the  primary  zone  they  changed  the  promotion  list 
service  date  to  improve  the  chances  for  World  War  II  officers.  
He  then  was  not  eligible  for  promotion  in  the  regular  system 
until four years later.  As a result, he spent eight and a half 
years as a captain before he became eligible for promotion to the 
grade of major in the primary zone. 
 
He was always promoted in the primary zone.  When he submitted 
his retirement papers, he was told that he had been recommended 
for permanent colonel and had a good chance to receive a star in 
the next year or two.  He was 46 years old and had 29 years of 
service for retirement.  He believes that if he would have been 
offered  a  commission  when  he  entered  pilot  training,  he  would 
have been a general officer when he retired. 
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  a  personal 
statement,  copies of correspondence extracted from his military 

personnel records and various other documents associated with his 
request. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 24 Mar 50, the applicant completed an Application for Aviation 
Cadet Training (Pilot Training).   
 
On  29  Sep  50,  he  entered  active  duty  in  the  Air  Force  as  an 
Aviation Cadet (AvnC) to attend Pilot Training.   
 
He attended pilot training from Sep 50 – Oct 51. 
 
On 27 Oct 51, upon completion of Pilot Training, he accepted a 
commission as a second lieutenant in the Air Force Reserves. 
 
On  1  Feb  74,  he  retired  from  the  Air  Force  in  the  grade  of 
Colonel.  He served a total of 24 years, 9 months, and 18 days of 
active military service. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIPV  recommends denial, stating the request is untimely.  
DPSIPV  states  the  applicant  had  ample  opportunity  during  his 
22 years on active duty as an officer to question the reason he 
was not offered an earlier commission date.  It has been 38 years 
since  his  retirement  from  the  Air  Force,  the  information  about 
his  degree  and  prior  service  was  shown  on  his  AF  Form  56, 
Application  for  Aviation  Cadet  Training,  and  DD  Form  4, 
Enlistment Record – United States Air Force, and could have been 
used as supporting documentation.  There is no way to determine, 
if the applicant had received an earlier commission date that he 
would have been selected for promotion to brigadier general. 
 
The complete DPSIPV evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Although his original request mentioned about the possibility of 
making general, his main objective was to get his commission date 
adjusted  from  the  beginning  of  his  time  in  the  Air  Force  as  a 
commissioned officer.   
 
An  Air  Force  Times  article,  dated  24  Jun  50,  talks  about 
commissions being given at the time of his enlistment in the Air 
Force.   
 
 
 

2 

 

 
In  addition  to  the  cadet  mentioned  in  his  earlier  request,  he 
knew a classmate at Central College who was in the Navy Reserve 
and his enlisted time counted for a year in grade as an officer. 
His intent was to become a pilot and commissioned officer and the 
recruiter failed to turn his name in to enter pilot training.  He 
believes he should have been commissioned in the USAF as a second 
lieutenant on 14 Aug 50, with a DOR of 14 Aug 49. 
 
His request is timely.  He was not aware of an appeals board or 
the  possibility  to  rectify  his  record  until  about  eight  years 
ago, after speaking with a fellow service member. 
 
At  the  time  of  his  retirement  he  was  told  by  his  commanding 
officer that he had been recommended for “permanent colonel,” and 
that guaranteed him 28 years as an officer, and a good chance to 
receive a star in the next year or two. 
 
The applicant's complete response, with attachment, is at 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  error  or  injustice.    After  a 
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  the  applicant’s 
complete submission, we are not persuaded his date of commission 
should  be  changed  to  qualify  for  earlier  dates  of  promotions.  
His  contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  we  do  not  find  his 
assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive.    We 
note  the  applicant  states  at  the  time  of  his  retirement  his 
commanding officer advised him that he had been recommended for 
promotion  to  the  grade  of  permanent  colonel.    According  to  his 
retirement order, he was advance to the grade of colonel.  While 
the applicant believes he should have been given a commission as 
a second lieutenant effective 14 Aug 50, his Enlistment Record, 
dated  29  Sep  1950,  signed  by  the  applicant  clearly  states  that 
“No promises were made to the applicant regarding his enlistment 
other than those shown in Items 6 to 9.”  In view of the above, 
we conclude the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that 
he has been the victim of an error or an injustice.   Therefore, 
in the absence of persuasive evidence that he was denied rights 
to which he was entitled, we find no basis to recommend granting 
the relief sought in this application. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
 

3 

 
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  Docket  Number    
BC-2011-01437  in  Executive  Session  on  15  Jan  13,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 5 Apr 11, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 22 May 12, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Jun 12. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 25 Jun 12, w/atch. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Panel Chair 

 
 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

4