RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01541
		INDEX CODE:  111.01, 131.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  YES

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) dated 12 Jan 53 and 1 Apr 53 be corrected and he be promoted to the grades of lieutenant colonel and colonel.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The (OERs) dated 12 Jan 53 and 1 Apr 53 are short in duration and even shorter in facts.  A combining of squadrons resulted in many officer overages.  He volunteered for remote duty to hasten his return to his chosen career duties.  The two promotion boards were at the disadvantage of mostly incomplete, inaccurate and misleading information, to a sufficient degree to make it impossible to act otherwise.  His Ohio National Guard report, dated 2 Jun 56, was affected by his having resigned from a full time job for a better position with the Civil Service.  

In support of his request, applicant provided a personal statement, a Letter of Recognition; a copy of his DD Form 214, Report of Separation form the Armed Forces of the United States; and documentation associated with his Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.  His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force on 27 Dec 41.  He was progressively promoted to the Reserve grade of major, having assumed that grade effective 6 Jun 47.  He served various assignments in the Reserve, National Guard and on active duty, and his name was placed on the Reserve Retired List on 31 Oct 56.  A search of his records provided no information pertaining to his promotion considerations.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The ANG/DPPI recommends denial.  DPPI states that the Ohio State Headquarters was unable to locate any records pertaining to the applicant.  However, the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC) was able to locate the OERs in question.  There is no record of the related promotion board proceedings that could be found.  Based upon the supporting documentation provided, DPPI recommends denial.  The DPPI evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant states that although the DPPI letter is in accordance with standard operating procedures, he finds it difficult to understand the loss of seven copies of orders for his years of service in the Army and Air Force.  During World War II orders were rarely used in the China/Burma/India area but many orders for the timeframe before February 1942 and after November 1943 are in his files and will be furnished upon request.  His complete submission, with attachments, 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.  After a thorough review of the evidence of record and the evidence provided in support of his appeal, we are not persuaded by the applicant's uncorroborated assertions that the contested reports are not a true and accurate assessment of his performance during the specified time period or that the comments contained in the reports were in error or contrary to the provisions of the governing instruction.  With respect to his request that he be promoted to the grades of lieutenant colonel and colonel, we are not ungrateful or unappreciative of his service to this nation; however, evidence has not been presented which would lead us to believe that he was denied rights to which he was entitled or based on the policy that was in effect at the time, he met the qualifications that would have made him eligible for promotion.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 BC-2003-01541 in Executive Session on 17 Sep 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Apr 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPPI, dated 21 Jul 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Aug 03.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 16 Aug 03, w/atchs.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair