DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-01755 

DEC  0 4  1997 

4 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force 
Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of 
Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that: 

- 

artrnent of the Air Force 
to include a letter to the 
promotion to the grade of 
colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1994A Central 
Colonel Board. 

&&  E 

Director 
Air Force Review Boards Agency 

ER 

U 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01755 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

DEC  0 4  1927 

4 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His records to include a letter to the promotion board president, 
be  considered  for promotion to the  grade of  colonel by  Special 
Selection Board  (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1994A  (CY94A) Central 
Colonel Board. 

- 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He was  given his Officer Promotion Recommendation  (PRF) for the 
CY94  board  only  eleven  (11) days  before  the  board  met,  which 
denied  him  his  right  to  submit  a  letter  for  the  board's 
consideration.  He states that the regulation requires 30 days. 

In support of the appeal, applicant submits an affidavit. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the 
grade of lieutenant colonel. 

Applicant was  considered and  not  selected for promotion  to  the 
grade  of  colonel  by  the  CY93A,  CY94A,  CY95B  and  CY96B  central 
selection boards. 

OPR profile since 1991, 

follows : 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

31 Mar 91 
31 Mar 92 
31 Mar 93 
21 Jan 94 
26 Aug 94 
18 Jul 96 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

97-01755 

A I R   FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Chief,  Promotion,  Evaluation,  and  Recog  Div,  AFPC/DPPP, 
reviewed the  application  and states that various  situations can 
preclude officers being considered by promotion boards from ever 
seeing  their  PRFs.  For  this  reason,  officer  considerations by 
promotion boards are not invalidated when an officer did not see 
his/her  PRF.  In  this  case,  the  applicant  did  review  his  PRF 
prior to the board.  He fails to provide an explanation as to why 
he  waited  until  now  to  address  his  intention  to  write  to  the 
CY94A board.  There is no evidence provided stating the applicant 
did not receive his PRF 30 days prior to the Board.  They state 
that this point of fact is inconsequential.  They believe 11 days 
is sufficient time to write a letter and send it to a promotion 
board.  They  further  state  that  if-the  applicant believed  the 
board  needed  additional information when  considering his  record 
for promotion, it was his option to provide that information in a 
letter.  When  the board  convened, that option ended.  Applicant 
has failed to prove his record as reviewed by the CY94A board was 
in error or that unique circumstances surrounded his inability to 
write  to the board president.  Therefore, they recommend denial 
of applicant's  request. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force  evaluation and states that 
in  response  to  the  Facts  and  Comments,  he  submitted  a  sworn 
affidavit with his petition, a  form of evidence accepted by  all 
United  States  District  Courts  in  support  of  Petitions, 
Complaints,  Motions  and  other  pleadings. 
In  response  to 
paragraphs  c  and d, he  states that  according to  his  reading  of 
AFI  36-2603, an applicant has  up  to  three years  to  file his  or 
her application.  He  filed his within the allotted time, and it 
should therefore be considered as timely.  He further states, the 
issue  should not  be  whether  or  not  he  could  have  put  together 
something for the board within that period of time.  The question 
should  be  (1)  did  he  have  an  equal  opportunity  with  other 
candidates  meeting  that  board  to  submit  a  well-prepared,  and 
thought-out letter, and  (2) if not, whether exigent circumstances 
preclude the Air  Force from providing him his PRF 30 days prior 
to the board.  He  states, had he, like other candidates meeting 
that board, received his PRF 30 days prior to the board, he would 
have  had  the  opportunity  to  consult  with  those  senior  judge 
advocates  and  then  had  sufficient  time  to  write  a  considered 
submission to the board.  He  states the Air  Force has presented 
the board with no evidence of any existing exigent circumstances 

2 

97- 01755 

that would justify late notification, so the board should assume, 
This  is  a  simple  case  of 
correctly,  that  none  existed. 
administrative oversight.  So,  for  the  above  reasons,  and  the 
grounds included in his petition and affidavit, he  submits that 
his application should be granted. 
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. 

i 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2 .   The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has-been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the 
evidence of record, the majority of the Board is convinced that the 
applicant was  not  afforded  sufficient time  to  review his  PRF  and 
write a letter to the board president.  We note that as required by 
the regulation, if he would have received his PRF  30 days prior to 
the Board, he would have had the opportunity, if desired, to submit 
a letter to the board president.  Upon submission of the letter to 
the  board  president,  the  majority  of  the  Board  recommends 
applicant's  record be considered by SSB. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, to include a letter to the promotion board 
president,  be considered  for promotion to the grade of  colonel by 
Special  Selection  Board  for  the  Calendar  Year  1994A  Central 
Colonel Board. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 16 October 1997, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chairman 
Mr. Allen Beckett, Member 
Mr. Richard A .   Peterson, Member 
Ms. Phyllis L. Spen'ce, Examiner  (without vote) 

as 
By  a majority  vote, 
recommended.  Mr. Saunders voted to deny applicant's request, but 
does  not  desire  to  submit  a  Minority  Report. 
The  following 
documentary evidence was considered: 

the  Board  voted  to  correct the  records, 

3 

97-01755 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Jun 97. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's  Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP,  dated  10 J u l   97. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR,  dated 28 J u l   97. 
Exhibit E.  Applicant's  Response,  dated 19 Aug 97. 

4

d

d

' 

 

4 

. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

*  MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

10 JUL  897 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPP 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-4710 

SUBJECT:  AFI 36-2603 Application--. 1 

Requested Action.  Applicant requests special selection board (S SB) consideration by the 
CY94A (1 1 Jul94) (P0694A) central colonel selection board with a letter to the promotion board 
president included in his officer selection record (OSR). 

~ 

Basis for Request.  Applicant states he received his P0694A promotion recommendation 

form (PRF) 11 days prior to the board, precluding him from writing a letter to the board 
president. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments: 

a.  AFR 36-10, The Officer Evaluation System, 1 Aug 88, is the governing 

directive.  AFI 36-240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, does not apply in 
this instance.  Applicant has four nonselections to the grade of colonel by the CY93A (12 Jul93) 
(P0693A), P0694A, CY95B (10 Oct 95) (P0695B), and CY96B (2 Dec 96) (P0696B) central 
selection boards. 

b.  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits a personal brief. 

c.  Various situations can preclude officers being considered by* promotion boards 

from ever seeing their PRFs.  War, extensive temporary duty (TDY) commitments, and 
geographical separation are all examples of circumstances which may make it impossible or 
extremely difficult for an officer to review hisher PRF prior to a board.  For this reason, officer 
considerations by promotion boards are not invalidated when an officer did not see hisher PRF. 
In this case, the applicant did review his PRF prior to the board.  He states he had 11 days to 
write a letter to the promotion board president, and provided a variety of reasons on why he 
chose not to do so.  The applicant fails to provide an explanation which might help us understand 
why he waited until now to address his intention to write to the P0694A board.  We are provided 
no evidence the applicant did not receive his P W  30 days prior to the P0694A board, but this 
point of fact is inconsequential.  Nothing presented in this appeal detracted from the applicant's 

" 

’

”

 

ability to write to the board.  The P0694A consideration was the applicant’s alone, and we 
believe 1 1 days is sufficient time to write a letter and send it to a promotion board, especially in 
light of today’s virtually instantaneous communication capabilities (fax). 

d.  If the applicant believed the board needed additional information when 

considering his record for promotion, it was his option to provide that information in a letter. 
When the P0694B board convened, that option ended.  He states he was not going to write to the 
board if he received a “Definitely Promote” recommendation.  Either the applicant had 
infomation or explanation to provide to the board or he was planning on letting his record be 
reviewed by itself.  A “Definitely Promote” recommendation would not address the “issue” the 
applicant now believes he needed to explain to the board.  This appeal is untimely and filed in 
hindsight.  We strongly recommend denial of the applicant’s request for SSB consideration. He 
has failed to prove his record as reviewed by the P0694A board was in error or that unique 
circumstances surrounded his “inability” to write to the board president. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

KENNETH W. FRYMAN, Col, USAF 
Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, and Recog Div 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt