RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00460
		INDEX CODE:  102.02

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS:

Consideration for a Regular commission since he was an Officer Training School (OTS) Distinguished Graduate (DG).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He graduated second in his OTS class (honor graduate); however, this information was not reflected in his military record.  After discovering this omission, he took action to have his records corrected to reflect his status as a DG.  In accordance with AFI 36-2013, OTS should have nominated him for a Regular commission since he was in the top ten percent of his OTS class.

In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his graduation certificates denoting DG and honor graduate status, extract from AFI 36-2013, and copies of his preselection brief and data verification brief.  The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Commissioned Service Date (TAFCSD) is 9 Apr 99.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of first lieutenant (O2), with an effective date and date of rank of 9 Apr 01.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPOO recommends the application be denied.  DPPPOO states that Congress mandated that, effective 1 Oct 96, all officers must enter active duty with a Reserve commission.  Further, Congress mandated that Regular appointments could not be granted before an officer completed one year of active commissioned service.  In Aug 94, when the AFI 36-2013 was published, OTS DGs were eligible for a Regular commission.  However, the 1994 version of AFI 36-2610 included a statement that, after 30 Sep 96, no OTS DGs would receive a Regular appointment.  Based on the information the applicant read in AFI 36-2013, it appeared he should have been considered for a Regular commission as an OTS DG.  However, when the law changed in 1996, OTS DGs were no longer considered for a Regular commission and as stated in the AF/DP message, beginning in FY98 Regular commissions would only be tendered with promotion to major and above.  DPPPOO believes that granting relief to the applicant would not be fair or equitable to all the other OTS DGs that have been commissioned as Reserve officers since the change in law.  If the applicant is selected for promotion to major, he will be offered a Regular commission at that time.  The HQ AFPC/DPPPOO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 14 Mar 03 for review and response.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office (Exhibit C). 
_________________________________________________________________

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 the rationale expressed 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.  In this respect, we note that, due to the 1996 change in law, Officer Training School (OTS) Distinguished Graduates (DGs) are commissioned as Reserve officers when they enter active duty.  In view of the above and absent 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 this application in Executive Session on 29 Apr 03, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

	            Panel Chair
	            Member
	            Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2003-00460.

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO, dated 7 Mar 03, w/atchs.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 14 Mar 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair