RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBERS:  BC-2002-01781
		INDEX CODE 131.01  102.08
	 	COUNSEL:  None

	 	HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of colonel with an effective date prior to 31 Aug 66 with appropriate compensation.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied eligibility for promotion to colonel when others, who had served in less demanding positions, were promoted to that grade. That denial resulted in his serving as a lieutenant colonel (LTC) for 11 continuous years without ever being eligible for consideration for promotion.

After his permanent commission [in 1955] as a LTC, it was recognized that a vast majority of permanent commissions granted after World War II (WWII) were given to officers who were commissioned during wartime and whose promotion list service dates (PLSD) were closely grouped. The condition was considered undesirable and action to eliminate what was defined as a “hump” in the retirement dates was taken. The retirement dates were to be adjusted by awarding additional unearned “time served” to deserving officers. As a result, he was “rewarded” by adjusting his PLSD from the actual time of his commissioning in 1943 back to August 1938.  This meant that if he was promoted to colonel, he could retire with full benefits at the end of 30 years at 1968 instead of 1973.  As a LTC, he would be retired in 1966, rather than 1971. 

Shortly after his promotion to LTC, another promotion board met to promote permanent LTCs to the grade of colonel. It was announced that only those permanent LTCs who had served as temporary full colonels for at least one year would be considered. When the decisions of that promotion board were announced, it was also announced that any officer whose PLSD was earlier than the latest PLSD of any officer promoted, such an officer would be considered as having been passed over and any officer who was passed over was ineligible for any future promotion to either temporary or permanent colonel. His “reward” of five years of promotion list service had placed him into that category of officers permanently ineligible for promotion. In the last year of his assignment at MacDill AFB, the vice commander of Strike Command told him he would be selected for colonel because his earlier ineligibility had been cancelled and the vice commander was going to be the president of the colonel promotion board. 

However, he was not selected and the vice commander explained that General   told the promotion board they would not promote any Regular officer who was scheduled for mandatory retirement within five years. As a LTC with approximately three and one-half years remaining before he could be retired, he was not considered. General  ’s arbitrary decision resulted in his becoming a victim of discrimination which has lasted more than 35 years.  If he had not been “rewarded” with five years of unearned years of promotion list service, he would have been promoted because his mandatory retirement date would not have made him ineligible.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

According to HQ AFPC/DPPPO, all permanent promotions in the Regular Air Force were made in accordance with Public Law 381 (Officer Personnel Act of 1947), as amended, and other related laws which provided for mandatory promotion upon completion of certain prescribed years of service and also for promotion to fill vacancies in the various grades. Public Law 737 (Armed Forces Regular Officer Augmentation Act of 1956) was approved on 20 Jul 56. This Law caused the strength of the Regular Air Force to be increased from 27,500 to 69,425. Recomputation of the promotion list service of approximately 2,100 officers appointed after 31 Dec 47 was accomplished and special orders announcing new PLSDs and dates of ranks (DORs) were published. In 1957, Public Law 737 authorized additional promotion list service to Regular Air Force officers.  This promotion list service, not to exceed 2 years, was to be awarded under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.  Under such regulations, officers who had PLSDs in 1937 through 1943 received an adjustment. Announcement of the adjustments in promotion list service of approximately 11,750 officers was made on 10 Dec 57.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 Feb 41 and was honorably discharged on 5 Sep 43 to accept a commission as a 2nd lieutenant on 6 Sep 43, when he also entered active duty. He was promoted to the grade of 1st lieutenant on 23 Jun 44 and captain on 22 Mar 45. He was appointed to the Army Reserves on 29 Oct 45 and released from active duty on 6 Jan 46. He was ordered to active duty on 7 Aug 46, appointed to the Regular Army in the grade of captain on 19 Jun 47, and discharged on 2 Jul 47 to be integrated in the Air Force on 3 Jul 47 in the grade of 1st lieutenant. He was promoted to the permanent grades of captain on 25 Oct 48 and major on 31 Dec 49.  

The applicant was selected for promotion by the permanent LTC board that convened on 6 Jul 55 and promoted to that grade effective 12 Aug 55.

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 Jun 66	Regular Colonel

The applicant was retired in the grade of 1 Sep 66 in the grade of LTC with 24 years, 11 months and 14 days of active service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPO advises that Public Law 737 provided that certain officers within the so called “hump” area be given up to two years additional promotion and retirement credit to provide for an even flow of promotions and retirements. In addition, new officers were appointed from Reserve and civilian status to bring the strength up to the new authorization.  Some of these new officers who fell within the “hump” area were also given additional service credit on the same basis as those officers currently in the Regular Air Force.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO believes, based on the eligibility criteria they have reviewed, the applicant would have been first considered for promotion to colonel in 1960. On reviewing the promotion eligibility of officers meeting boards between 1958 and 1965, the only “deferred” officers ineligible for promotion consideration were those officers twice deferred to captain, major and lieutenant colonel. In addition, only those officers who had a date of separation approved that was within two years of the board convening date were ineligible for promotion consideration.  The applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to support his claim that he was not considered for promotion to colonel. There is no provision in policy or law that supports his contention that deferred officers were not eligible for promotion or that those officers who were within five years of mandatory retirement would not be promoted. Thousands of officers were affected by the adjustments to PLSDs. Therefore, they do not believe he was the victim of discrimination. Promotion to the grade of colonel was and remains highly selective. Denial is recommended.  

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant contends the advisory does not explain how he obtained five years of additional promotion list service. Items d. and e. in the evaluation specify a limit of two years to be awarded. Without the award of five years of additional promotion list service, he would not have been mandatorily retired in 1966. These five years had a significant affect on his failure to be promoted to the grade of colonel. He asserts that had he really been considered for promotion in 1960 as the advisory indicates, he would have been promoted. He believes a major reason for his being passed over was that the board was not permitted to consider officers who had not served in the temporary grade of colonel for at least one full year. That earlier “pass over” was recognized later when he was assured he would be promoted to colonel but then made a victim of discrimination when General 	  told the board they could not consider any officer for promotion to the grade of colonel who was within five years of mandatory retirement.

A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPO advises that a temporary promotion is an advancement in active duty grade accomplished by means of a temporary appointment, with a specified date of rank, in the higher grade.  For a Regular officer, a temporary promotion is an active duty promotion in advance of his permanent promotion to the same grade.  A permanent promotion is an advancement in an officer’s Reserve grade.  After reviewing the standard operating procedures (SOP) for computing PLSDs, DPPPO believes the applicant’s dates are correct.  There is no indication that the amount of service could not have been over four years. The SOP provides an adjustment based on credit for all active Federal commissioned service and age, and additional credit under the Hump adjustment.  Although there is nothing specific that explains the Hump adjustment, DPPPO believes this was additional credit given to those officers who were already an officer of the Regular Air Force at the time of enactment of the title and may have already had over 13 years promotion list service on 31 Dec 57.

A complete copy of the additional evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL EVALUATION:

The applicant concludes there is nothing specific in the HQ AFPC/DPPPO advisory that explains the “Hump” adjustment, so no one can explain why he was awarded five years of promotion list service in lieu of the customary two years.  Had he received the normal two years of adjustment, he would not have been declared ineligible for promotion when General   arbitrarily instructed the promotion board that officers within five years of mandatory retirement would not be promoted, nor would he have been mandatorily retired earlier than 1969. He asserts the definitions for temporary and permanent promotions included in the advisory are not the same as the ones in effect during his tour of duty. His permanent grade of captain tended to delay his temporary promotion to major and lieutenant colonel, for commanders were reluctant to “waste” a quota on a regular officer who could expect an early permanent promotion. He explains why he believes he was not eligible for promotion by the promotion boards listed, contrary to the advisory’s assertions. General  ’s statement to the promotion board made him a victim of discrimination.

A complete copy of the applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was timely filed.

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 applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should be promoted to the grade of colonel with an effective date prior to 31 Aug 66. The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Promotion to the grade of colonel is and always has been extremely competitive and not guaranteed. The applicant has failed to show that he was not considered for promotion to that grade, or that he was discriminated against and treated differently than others similarly affected by the service credit policy in effect at the time, or that his records were so superior to his peers that his promotion to colonel was incontrovertible. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

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 this application in Executive Session on 20 March 2003 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

					Panel Chair
					Member
					Member

The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2002-01781 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 May 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Sep 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Sep 02.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 8 Oct 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 8 Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 17 Jan 03.
   Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Feb 03, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair