RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2002-02840
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00
	XXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  	

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be promoted to the grade of first lieutenant.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

In a letter submitted by the applicant’s nephew, he indicates that the applicant was not promoted due to timing of the Japanese surrender and his subsequent separation from service.  He states that the applicant, now 80 years old, has been bothered for many years due to not being promoted.  In support of the applicant’s appeal, the nephew submits the applicant’s records showing the Air Medals and decorations received by the applicant during his time in service.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

__________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Army of the United States on 24 June 1944 (Examiner’s note: Army of the United States was for temporary appointments in support of the war effort).  The applicant was released from active duty on 21 Nov 45 in the grade of second lieutenant.  During his service the applicant was awarded the Philippine Liberation Ribbon and one Bronze Star, the Air Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters, the Asiatic-Pacific Theater Ribbon with four Battle stars, and one overseas bar.

__________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request.  Requirements for promotion were governed by Army Regulation 605-12, Temporary Promotions in the Army of the United States, dated 17 Aug 44.  Normally officers were not recommended for promotion, nor were recommendations forwarded, or promotions approved by a commander exercising promotion authority unless a position vacancy existed under the jurisdiction of the commander concerned in the grade to which promotion was recommended.  In addition, officers were not recommended for promotion until they served the minimum time-in-grade (TIG) requirements.  The TIG for promotion to first lieutenant was 6 months.

On 9 Dec 44, AR605-12 was amended to allow second lieutenants that had completed 18 months of service to be promoted to first lieutenant without regard to Table of Organization or allotment vacancies.  The authorization was not to be used for the automatic promotion of all second lieutenants, but was reserved for those denied merited advancement solely because they were not assigned to positions established for the higher grade.  In the applicant’s case, he did not complete 18 months of service.

On 17 Oct 45, authority for terminal leave promotions was granted to all separation centers.  Officers never promoted while in active service would be promoted on the first duty day of terminal leave provided they served two years on active duty in their present grade and had an efficiency index of 35 or higher.  In the applicant’s case, he did not have two years on active duty and he had an efficiency index of 25.

Based on their review of all provisions where promotion for the applicant may have been authorized, they find that the applicant did not meet any of the provisions.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

__________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 22 Nov 02 for review and comment within 30 days.  To date, a response has not been received.

__________________________________________________________________

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 their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 Docket Number 02-02840 in Executive Session on 16 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 02, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 18 Nov 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 22 Nov 02.