RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2007-01246
		INDEX CODE:  131.01, 107.00
		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NOT INDICATED

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His records be corrected to show he was commissioned as an officer in the Air Force and retired from the Reserves as a high ranking officer, rather than a master sergeant.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was denied a commission due to physical disqualification; however, he believes the evaluating physician made an error.

In support of his application, the applicant provided a personnel statement, two letters from the Veterans Administration Hospital, Atlanta Georgia and excerpts from his military personnel and medical records.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant enlisted in the Air Force on 10 Nov 48, for a term of three years. He then entered the University of Georgia Reserve Officer Training Corp (ROTC) Program.  On 4 Aug 55, he was given a physical examination in preparation for submitting an application for appointment in the Air Force Reserves as a commissioned officer.  He was classified as not-qualified for commission by the examining physician on 6 Aug 55, due to a history of diffuse goiter with hyperthyroidism. He continued to serve in the Reserves in an enlisted capacity, was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant and retired in that grade on 9 Jan 74. He served a total of 25 Years, 1 month and 29 days service.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFRC/A1E recommends denial.  A1E states in part that they are unable to substantiate the applicant’s claim due to the extended period of time that has elapsed since the alleged occurrence.  

The complete AFRC/A1E evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant through, his Congressman, submitted a notarized copy of his academic record from the University of Georgia.  In addition, he submitted documentation relative to his contention to further support his case.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

USAF/JA recommends denial.  JA states in part, the applicant has not met his burden of proving that the non-commissioning decision was erroneous or that it amounted to an injustice.  The authority to commission or not commission someone is vested in Air Force accession authorities, based on medical and other inputs.  This authority is not vested in the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) physicians.  

More to the point, at the time he would otherwise have been commissioned, the applicant was medically unqualified for commissioning.  The fact that the medical impediment to commissioning subsequently went away in the opinion of VA physicians, does not obligate the Air Force to reverse its decision, for several obvious reasons.  

First, the Air Force is entitled to be conservative in its determination not to risk recurrence of previously disqualifying medical problems, even if that position was “speculative” as alleged.  There is no right to a commission and the Air Force has the inherent right to be highly selective.  

Secondly, the needs of the Air Force for commissioned officers were, of course, continually changing, and a myriad of factors such as personnel utilization, numbers of vacancies, and numbers of applicants would all have been perfectly legitimate reasons for the Air Force not to reverse its earlier decision.  

The applicant has provided no evidence whatsoever that the Air Force treated him differently than it did others who wanted commissions, that the Air Force did not follow its own rules, either by violating them, by applying the wrong standards of analysis, or even by ignoring its rules so as to act arbitrarily and capriciously, or even that the Air Force’s rules were somehow unfair.  It is unfortunate that the applicant was repeatedly determined to be non-commissionable, but that simply does not translate into an injustice.

The complete USAF/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force additional evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 21 Sep 07, for review and comment within 30 days.  As of this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  Evidence has not been provided which would lead us to believe that the rules of the applicable regulations, which implement the law, were inappropriately applied or that he was denied rights to which he was entitled.  Therefore, the Board agrees with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopts their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no 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 probable 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 BC-2007-01246 in Executive Session on 4 November 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

		XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
		XXXXXXXXXX, Member
		XXXXXXXXXX, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

	Exhibit A.	DD Form 149, dated 10 Apr 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.	Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.	Letter, AFRC/A1E, dated 4 May 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit D.	Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 24 May 07.
	Exhibit E.	Letter, Congressman, dated 4 May 07, w/atchs.
	Exhibit F.	Letter, AF/JA, dated 11 Sep 07.
	Exhibit G.	Letter, AFBCMR, 21 Sep 07, w/atchs.

                                   XXXXXXXXXX
                                   Panel Chair