AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 

 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-01483 
COUNSEL: None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
 
     
 
 
XXXXXXXXXX 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:  
 
He be commissioned as an officer. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
1.  He  accepted  an  appointment  as  a  flight  officer  because  he 
was not given the opportunity to accept a commission. 
 
2.  He was never promoted.  
 
3.  He  was  a  licensed  pilot  when  he  enlisted  in  the  Army  Air 
Corp.  He completed flight school and served with the 446 Bomb 
Group,  8th  Air  Force  in  England.    As  an  aircraft  commander,  he 
flew  28  combat  missions  and  never  lost  a  plane  or  a  man.    His 
co-pilot and bombardier/navigator were commissioned officers. 
 
In  support  of  his  appeal  the  applicant  provides  a  copy  of  his 
discharge  from  the  Flight  Officer  Air  Corps,  a  copy  of  WD  AGO 
53-97,  Military  Record  and  Separation  Report,  Honorable 
Discharge Certificate, Enlisted Record of Service, and a copy of 
special orders. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The  applicant  enlisted  in  the  Army  of  the  United  States  (AUS) 
enlisted reserve on 27 Oct 42 and was subsequently appointed an 
aviation cadet.  On 11 Mar 44, he was honorably discharged from 
aviation  cadet  status  to  accept  an  appointment  as  a  flight 
officer.    He  was  appointed  as  a  flight  officer  and  entered 
active duty on 12 Mar 44.  He was discharged from active duty as 
a flight officer on 22 Apr 46 by reason of physical disability. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
 

 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIPR  recommends  the  applicant’s  request  be  denied.  
DPSIPR  states  the  applicant’s  record  contains  no  documentation 
to  support  appointment  to  second  lieutenant  upon  completion  of 
training,  nor  is  there  documentation  to  support  he  was 
recommended for appointment as a second lieutenant subsequent to 
being  appointed  a  flight  officer.    Additionally,  the  applicant 
provided  no  documentation  to  support  an  error  or  injustice  in 
his appointment upon completion of training. 
 
According  to  Army  Regulation  615-160,  Enlisted  Men—Aviation 
Cadets,  dated  5  Nov  42,  selected  aviation  cadets  who 
successfully completed a prescribed course of air crew training 
were  commissioned  second  lieutenants  in  the  AUS.    All  other 
aviation  cadet  graduates  of  aircrew  training  were  appointed 
flight  officers  in  the  AUS.    Upon  completion  of  air  crew 
training,  a  board  of  officers  considered  the  qualifications  of 
each  aviation  cadet  and  prepared  a  report,  submitted  through 
channels,  to  the  Commanding  General,  Army  Air  Forces.    The 
report  contained  the  number  of  hours  devoted  to  and  grades 
attained  in  each  subject,  including  flying  time  and  flying 
grades.  The report also contained a statement as to whether the 
cadet was physically, morally, educationally, and professionally 
qualified  for  commission  as  a  second  lieutenant  or  appointment 
as a flight officer. 
 
According  to  Army  Regulation  610-50,  Flight  Officers,  dated 
5 Nov  42,  flight  officers  could  be  selected  for  appointment  to 
the  grade  of  second  lieutenant.    The  system  for  selection  was 
designed  to  assure  fairness  and  uniformity  and  to  provide  for 
due consideration of individual merit. 
 
The  complete  AFPC/DPSIPR  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit C. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
 
In his response dated 19 December 2012, the applicant indicates 
his  disagreement  with  AFPC/DPSIPR’s  recommendation  to  deny  his 
request.  He reiterates his previous contentions and states that 
he  geared  everything  towards  flying  in  support  of  his  country 
during  the  war  and  in  the  end  he  was  not  treated  fairly  or 
recognized  for  his  exemplary  service.    It  is  his  wish  to  have 
this  injustice  corrected  before  he  expires.    Additionally,  he 
requested  he  be  given  a  phone  interview  before  his  case  is 
decided.    
 
The applicant’s complete response 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.    We  took  notice  of  the 
applicant's  complete  submission  in  judging  the  merits  of  the  case; 
however,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and  recommendation  of  the  Air 
Force 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.    Additionally,  while  we  note  the 
applicant’s assertion he was treated unfairly, the evidence available 
to  us  is  insufficient  to  conclude  that  he  should  have  been 
commissioned  as  a  second  lieutenant.    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  issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 
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 Docket Number BC-2012-
01483  in  Executive  Session  on  10  January  2013,  under  the  provisions 
of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 March 2012, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, DPSIPR, dated 28 November 2012, w/atchs. 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 

    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 December 2012. 
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 19 December 2012 
 
 
 
 
                                   XXXXXXXXXX 
                                   Panel Chair