RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00924 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel (0-5). _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: He received his commission as a Career Reserve Officer (CRO) upon graduating from Ball State University in May 65 through the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC). AFROTC Distinguished Graduates were granted a Regular commission, except for the year groups 1965 and 1966. Those year groups received a Regular commission if their first supervisor recommended them. In this case, he was not recommended for a Regular commission because his supervisor did not like the fact that AFROTC graduates received a commission right out of college. He was told he would not receive a Regular commission. He appealed to the personnel officer, who told him there was nothing that could be done. His commission fell under the Reserve Officer Promotion Authority (ROPA). He was informed that he would be promoted to the next higher grade upon his retirement, which meant he would at least be promoted to lieutenant colonel. When the 1966-year group was considered from promotion to major (0-4), all Reserve officers were given a Regular commission. Regular commissions were more desirable because the promotion rates were higher. When he retired from the Reserves, he was not promoted to lieutenant colonel. When he asked about the promotion to lieutenant colonel, no one could explain to him why the promotion was not granted, other than, “it’s not authorized.” He believes it is an injustice to have his contract revoked after 18 years. Additionally, the officer evaluation report (OER) system, which was in effect during 1974 through 1976, compounded this injustice. In this respect, his rater changed his rating from a “controlled 1” to a “controlled 2” because another captain had a line number for promotion to major. He quotes an article from the Air Force Times that validates this claim. He tried to locate information regarding the ROPA; however, he was unsuccessful just as he was for finding information regarding the change of authority to discontinue promoting for a CRO to the next higher grade upon retirement. In support of his request, the applicant provides excerpts from his official military personnel records. His complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant retired from the Air Force Reserve in the grade of major on 1 Sep 85. He served 20 years, 2 months, and 25 days of satisfactory service. Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of Proceedings. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPTT recommends denial. DPTT states the applicant was promoted and retired according to appropriate laws in effect at the time of his retirement. The highest grade the applicant was promoted to and served in satisfactorily was the grade of major. There was no error or injustice. In addition, there is no provision of law that authorizes a member to be promoted to a higher grade at the time of retirement. The ARPC/DPTT complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant responded by stating the research accomplished by ARPC/DPTT was not thorough. In this respect, he personally knows of two ROPA promotions that were made according to the same provisions to which he was briefed at Ball State University. He took the oath of office and made an agreement with the United States Air Force to serve under the laws and provisions at the time of his commission. He knows that those provisions existed 18 years later and maintains that the research conducted was incomplete. An injustice occurred to him and other CROs who were not promoted to the next higher grade. The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ 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 have carefully considered the applicant’s submission and we are not persuaded that the applicant’s request for retirement in the grade of lieutenant colonel should be granted. We note the disagreements the applicant has with ARPC/DPTT’s evaluation. However, the record does not reveal nor has the applicant provided any evidence to refute ARPC/DPTT’s assessment or to show that his retirement in the grade of major was improper or contrary to the governing regulations and the law. We therefore agree with the opinion and recommendation of the office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Accordingly, 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 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-2011-00924 in Executive Session on 8 Sep 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: , Vice Chair , Member , Member The following documentary evidence for Docket Number BC-2011- 00924 was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 Mar 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, ARPC/DPTT, dated 10 May 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 May 11. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 27 May 11. Vice Chair