RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-01894
		INDEX CODE:  131.09

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be provided the retirement grade he should have received.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not retired in the grade that he should have been.

His records were not viewed by a board and contained errors.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided extracts from his military personnel records. 

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Army of the United States, on 22 Apr 43.  He was promoted to the temporary grade of captain on 31 Oct 50.

On 16 Dec 52, the applicant was appointed a captain, Air Force Reserve.  He was promoted to the permanent grade of major on 1 Jul 55.

Applicant was relieved from active duty on 30 Apr 62 in the grade of captain, and retired, effective 1 May 62, in the grade of major.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial indicating that based on the applicant's date of rank (DOR) as a captain, he would have been eligible to be considered for temporary promotion beginning with the Fiscal Year 1953 (FY53) board.  Officers who were not recommended for promotion by the major command, were not considered by the central selection board.  There was evidence in the applicant's record that he was considered for promotion by at least two temporary promotion boards, but was nonselected.

In AFPC/DPPPO's view, the applicant has not provided any documentation to support his contention that he should have been promoted and retired in a higher grade.  Based on the documentation in the applicant's record, they believe he was considered, but not selected for temporary promotion to the grade of major.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished responses and additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibits E and F.

_________________________________________________________________

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 (OPR) and adopt their rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  We believe it should be pointed out that the applicant’s decorated service and sacrifice for his country have not gone unnoticed.  Notwithstanding this, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs.  Other than his own assertions, no evidence has been presented which would lead us to believe that the applicant should have been promoted and retired in a higher grade, or that his records are inaccurate.  In view of the above, and in the absence of sufficient 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 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 02-01894 in Executive Session on 25 Feb 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jun 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Nov 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, undated, w/atchs.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 30 Dec 02.

                                   Panel Chair