AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  92-01200  'a 0 9  199@ 
COUNSEL:  -p 
HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

He  be  promoted  to  the  grade of  lieutenant  colonel  as  of  30 June 
1995. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He was selected for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant colonel by 
the CY 1981 central lieutenant colonel selection board but resigned 
to  enter  the  seminary.  In order  to  become  a  priest, he  had  no 
choice but  to resign.  He then returned to active duty on 21 June 
1991 as  a  chaplain in the  grade of  major  with  a  date  of  rank of 
28 March 1986. 
His previous application to the Board, requesting reinstatement of 
his  line number for promotion by  the CY  1981 selection board, was 
denied. 
He  is  not  now  challenging  the  dubious  logic  for  the 
Board's  decision.  He  is  providing  evidence  which  will  give  the 
Board the rationale to approve his request based on equity. 

In the AFMPC/DPMAJ  advisory opinion prepared  in May  1992, it  was 
noted  that,  "Although  there  are  no  provisions  in  law  to  give  a 
recalled officer his line number back, under unique circumstances, 
(they) may  recommend  the  AFBCMR  grant  relief."  Although  unique 
circumstances did not exist then, they do now.  When he returned to 
active duty, he was placed in the CY 1992 year group for promotion 
consideration to  lieutenant colonel.  His  placement  in  this  year 
group for chaplains created  paradox.  As a chaplain who became a 
chaplain in the middle of his career, he would not have the number 
of OPRs career chaplains would have received.  His previous period 
of  active duty only had  tangential application to  the  chaplaincy. 
Unlike other officers with a break  in service, his history had  no 
application to  his  current  status.  These  factors made  promotion 
virtually impossible.  When the CY 1992 board met, he only had one 
OPR  as a chaplain in his  file.  While  it was outstanding, it  was 
insufficient to carry the day.  When the CY  1994 board met, there 
were  only  two  more  OPRs  in  the  record. 
While  the  OPRs  were 
outstanding, he was not  selected above the  zone.  As  a result, he 
was required to separate and was offered early retirement. 

Recognizing his significant value, the Air Force sought to have him 
recalled to active duty after retirement.  The policy to not recall 
twice  deferred  officers  was  waived  to  accomplish  this  result. 
Since  his  recall,  his  performance  has  been  outstanding.  After 
recall, he could not be considered for promotion. 

His  devotion  to  the  country, which  began  as  a  request  from  the 
Chief of Chaplains to him in 1990, has netted no promotions and the 
distinction  of  being  one of  the  oldest  majors  in  the Air  Force. 
Based  on the unique  circumstances of  his case, he  requests, as a 
matter of equity, that his records be corrected to show that he was 
promoted  to  lieutenant  colonel  on  his  last  day  of  active  duty 
before retirement. 

In support of his application, he provided a brief  by  counsel and 
copies  of  documents  associated  with  the  events  cited  in  his 
contentions (see Exhibit F) . 

RESUME OF THE CASE: 

On  18  February  1993,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  the 
applicant's request that his line number for promotion to the grade 
of  lieutenant colonel by  the  CY  1981  selection board  be  restored 
and he be promoted to that grade, effective 21 June 1991 or other 
appropriate date, and, he be reinstated on active duty.  A summary 
of  the evidence considered by  the Board and  the rationale for the 
Board's  decision is set forth in the Record of  Proceedings, dated 
14 April 1993, with Exhibits A through E. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

On  27  January  1965,  the  applicant  was  appointed  a  second 
lieutenant, Reserve of  the Air  Force.  He was voluntarily ordered 
to  extended  active duty  in  that  grade, effective  6 January  1968. 
He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 8 January 1970, and 
was progressively promoted to the permanent grade of  captain, with 
a date of rank of 1 June 1975 and to the temporary grade of major, 
effective 1 March 1978 and with a date of rank of  5 June 1977.  He 
was  selected  for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by 
the  CY  1981 Lieutenant Colonel  Selection Board with  a line number 
which would have been effective on 1 July 1982.  On 17 March  1981, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force  accepted  his  resignation  and 
directed that the applicant be honorably discharged.  The applicant 
was honorably discharged  from all  appointments on  15 August  1981, 
having served 13 years, 7 months and 10 days on active duty, 

On 16 August  1981, the applicant was appointed a major, Reserve of 
the  Air  Force. 
He  was  assigned  to  the  Nonaffiliated  Reserve 
Section  and  from  26 September  1983  to  5  February  1987,  to  the 
Inactive Status List Reserve Section. 

2 

AFBCMR 92-01200 

In the meantime, the applicant was ordained in the Roman Catholic 
Church  on  7  June  1986.  On  6 February  1987, he was  appointed  a 
Captain  (Chaplain) Reserve of  the Air  Force.  Based  on allowable 
service credit, his Total Years Service Date  (TYSD) was established 
as  27  January  1965 
An  ARPC  Form  0-179,  Grade  Determination 
Worksheet  Service Credit  (DOPMA) ,  prepared on 12 March  1987, shows 
that  the  applicant  was  entitled  to  11  years  and  5  days  of 
creditable prior commissioned service and no credit for experience 
or education since the allowable credit  for appointment grade was 
less than 7 years per AFR 36-15, Table 2-4, Rule 2 .   Based on this 
computation, he  was  entitled  to  be  appointed  a  Chaplain  in  the 
grade  of  captain  (7 years’  minimum  service  credit  required  for 
grade  awarded).  He  was  thereafter  assigned  to  a  Ready  Reserve 
assignment  and  was  promoted  to  the  Reserve  grade  of  major, 
effective 1 February 1 9 9 0 .   The following is a resume of  the Non- 
EAD  Officer Effectiveness/Performance  Report  (OER/OPR) ratings he 
received during this period. 

PERIOD ENDING 

5 Feb 1988  (OER) 
30 Nov 1988  (OPR) 
30 Nov 1990 
29 May 1991 

PERFORMANCE RATING 

1-1-x 

Meets Standards (MS) 

MS 
MS 

pursuant  to  an  invitation  issued  by  the  Chief  of  Chaplains  on 
27 August  1990, the applicant applied and was accepted for entry on 
active duty, in the grade of major, effective 21 June 1991.  In an 
AFMPC  Form  282,  Service  Data  Computation  Worksheet  (Corrected 
copy), prepared on 18 September 1991, the applicant was granted  5 
years, 2 months  and 23  days of  service credit, which was used  to 
backdate  his  current  grade  date  of  rank  (CGDOR) as  a  major  upon 
entry  on  extended  active  duty.  As  a  result,  a  date  of  rank 
28 March 1986 was established. 

The following is a resume of his OPR  ratings subsequent his entry 
on extended active duty during this period. 

PERIOD ENDING 

20 Jun 1992 
13 Jun 1993 
13 Jun 1994 

PERFORMANCE RATING 

MS 
MS 
MS 

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion by  the 
CY 1992  ( 1 6   November 1 9 9 2 )   and CY 1994  (11 October 1994) lieutenant 
colonel selection boards.  Based on this fact, he was notified that 
the law required his separation no later than 31 May 1995 and that, 
as an exception to policy, he was eligible to elect to retire under 
the  Early  Retirement  Program. 
Based  on  his  20  December  1994 
application,  on  30  June  1995,  the  applicant  was  relieved  from 
active duty and  retired, effective  1 July  1995.  He was  credited 

3 

AFBCMR 92-01200 

with 17 years, 9 months and  17 days of active duty service and 30 
years, 5 months and 4 days of service for pay. 
In view of a  shortage of Catholic Chaplains, upon retirement, the 
applicant  was  recalled to  active duty under  the provisions  of  10 
USC 688.  The Orders which provided for this action indicated that 
the applicant would revert to retired status on 1 July 1998.  This 
date  has  since  been  extended  to  30  September  2002.  Since  his 
recall  to  extended  active  duty,  the  applicant  has  received  O P R s  
closing 2 May  1996, 2 May  1997, and  2 May  1998, in which  he  was 
rated “Meets Standards .” 

’ 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Service  Verification  Section,  AFPC/DPPAO,  reviewed  this 
application and  indicated that  the  applicant’s date  of  rank  as a 
major at  the time he entered extended active duty as a chaplain on 
21 June 1991 was computed in accordance with AFI  36-2604 based on 
his  promotion  to  major  in  the  Air  Force  Reserve,  effective 
1 February  1990. 
He  received  a11  applicable  credit  in  the 
computation of his date of rank when he entered active duty.  As a 
result,  he  was  immediately  considered  for  promotion  with  other 
chaplains (see Exhibit G). 

The Appeals  and  SSB  Branch, AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  the  applicant‘s 
amended  request  and  recommended denial  of  the  request  for direct 
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  DPPPA stated that an 
officer may be  qualified for promotion, but, in the judgment of  a 
selection  board--vested  with  the  discretionary  authority  to  make 
the  selections--he or  she may  not  be  the  best  qualified of  those 
available  for  the  limited  number  of  promotion vacancies.  Absent 
clear-cut evidence the applicant would  have been a selectee by  the 
P0594A board, DPPPA believes a duly constituted board, applying the 
complete promotion  criteria, is  in the  most  advantageous position 
to render this vital determination.  The board‘s prerogative to do 
so should not be  usurped except under extraordinary circumstances. 
DPPPA does not  agree that unique circumstances exist now that did 
not  exist  when he presented his original application.  Noting  the 
statement provided  by  the  additional  rater of  the  applicant’s 13 
June 1993 OPR, DPPPA indicated that that officer does not recommend 
a  direct  promotion;  rather,  he  states  his  support  and  highest 
recommendation  for  promotion  consideration  by  supplemental  board 
action.  He  does  not  provide  any  information  to  substantiate  an 
error or injustice occurred, or that he now has new information not 
previously available. 

DPPPA reiterated that the applicant voluntarily left the Air Force 
to pursue  another career after having been  selected  f o r   promotion 
to  lieutenant  colonel  as  a  line  officer. 
He  forfeited  the 
promotion by his resignation.  He later reentered the Air Force in 
the grade of  major and was twice nonselected f o r   promotion to the 
grade of lieutenant colonel as a chaplain.  As a result, he retired 

4 

AFBCMR 92-01200 

and was  subsequently recalled  to active  duty.  The applicant was 
aware, prior  to  acceptinq  the  Air  Force's  recall  offer,  that  he 
would  be  recalled  in  the  grade  of  major,  with  no  chance  for 
DPPPA  stated  that  the  applicant s 
promotion  consideration. 
situation is no different from that of other officers who lost line 
numbers  due  to  voluntary  separation  because  of  their  desire  to 
pursue other goals and aspirations.  DPPPA is of  the opinion that 
it  would  be  unfair  to  offer  the  applicant  the  opportunity  of  a 
direct promotion not  afforded to other nonselectees who  separated  * 
from  the  Air  Force  in  one  career  field  and  later  accepted  a 
Other  than  his  own 
commission  in  a  different  career  field. 
opinions,  the  applicant  has  provided  nothing  to  prove  his 
circumstances are unique. 

DPPPA stated that they do not question the applicant's devotion to 
his duties or to the Air Force; however, realistically, promotions 
are  not  based  solely  on  faithful  service  or  devotion  to  duty. 
Accordingly,  they  recommend  the  applicant's  request  be  denied 
(Exhibit H) . 
The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, also reviewed  this application 
and  recommended  denial.  JA  stated  that, as  noted  in  the  other 
advisory  opinions,  the  position  in  which  the  applicant  found 
himself  at  the  time  he  most-recently  competed  for promotion  was 
solely  the  result  of  his  own  actions.  JA  cannot  identify  any 
actions  taken  by  Air  Force  authorities  in  this  case  that  were 
improper or questionable under the circumstances.  As to whether or 
not  the  \\unusual circumstances"  of  this  officer  having  been 
recalled to active duty due to the shortage of Catholic chaplains, 
in  the  context  of  his  not  having  yet  established  a  fully 
competitive  record  for  promotion,  constitutes  an  injustice,  JA 
leaves that to the discretion of the Board. 

JA  indicated  that  the  statutorily-mandated  scheme  f o r   selecting 
officers for promotion requires that an officer demonstrate that he 
or  she  is  among  those  best  qualified  for promotion  by  competing 
against  the  other  considerees  at  a  properly  convened  selection 
board  (see 10 USC 628(b) and DoD Directive 1320.11, paragraph D.1., 
and AFI  36-2501, Chapter  6 ) .   In JA's  opinion, the  applicant has 
failed  to  prove  that  he  was  among  those  best  qualified  for 
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. 

This evaluation is at Exhibit I. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  applicant  reviewed  the  advisory  opinions  and  reiterated  his 
He  also  provided  a  copy  of  his  most  recent  OPR 
contentions. 
closing 2 May 1998.  The applicant's submissions are at Exhibit K. 

5 

AFBCMR 92-01200 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  A s   a result of the consideration of the applicant's request for 
reinstatement of his selection for promotion by the CY 1981 central 
lieutenant  colonel  selection  board,  in  February  1993, the  Board 
determined that the applicant's  l o s s   of the projected promotion as 
a line officer was the result of personal choices he made and that 
the evidence provided was insufficient to show he was the victim of 
an  error  or  injustice. 
In  addition  to  his  previously-stated 
contention that he was forced to resign his commission to pursue a 
vocation,  the  applicant  also  asserts  that,  based  on  his  unique 
circumstances, i.e., the  fact  that  his  records did  not  contain a 
sufficiently lengthy history of  duty performance  when  compared to 
other  chaplains being  considered  for promotion,  the  immediacy  of 
his  consideration upon  entry  on  active  duty  as  a  member  of  the 
Chaplain Corps, his value to the Air Force, and his devotion to his 
duties and country, approval of his request is appropriate based on 
equity.  We disagree based on the following rationale. 

2.  First, we believe  it  should be  noted  that there  is nothing in 
the available evidence to indicate the appointment actions taken in 
this  case  were  improper  or  that  the  service  computations  for 
appointment/entry grades and  dates of  rank were  erroneous.  When 
the applicant was discharged from the Regular component in 1981, he 
automatically forfeited his  selection for promotion  to  lieutenant 
colonel.  Based on his application for appointment in the Chaplain 
Corps, the applicant's  service as a Reserve officer was terminated 
and  he  was  reappointed  as  a  Reserve  Chaplain  in  the  grade  of 
captain based on the computation of the service credit to which he 
was entitled.  When he  was voluntarily ordered to extended active 
duty, based on the fact that his permanent Reserve grade was major 
and  in  accordance  with  existing  procedures,  he  was  entitled  to 
enter active duty  in his Reserve grade.  His date of  rank on the 
active duty list was backdated based on yet another computation in 
which he received allowable service credit for that purpose.  Each 
of  the  above  actions  was  taken  based  on  a  decision  made  by  the 
applicant. 
The  service  computations  which  resulted  from  his 
decisions were  separate  and  apart  from  those previously  made  and 
were  based  on  service  credit  to  which  he  was  entitled  for  the 
particular status for which he  applied.  We  have  seen no evidence 
by  the  applicant  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  that  the  cited 
service computations were  erroneous or contrary to  the provisions 
of  the  Air  Force  regulations,  instructions  and  policies,  which 
implement  the  law.  Furthermore, there  is no  indication that  the 
applicant  was  treated  differently  than  other  officers  who  resign 
their  commissions  to  seek  appointment  and/or  entry  on  extended 
active duty in a different competitive category. 

3 .   Based on the above, we have no basis to find an error occurred 
with  respect  to  the  determination  that  the  applicant  met  the 
eligibility criteria for consideration for promotion as a chaplain 
to  the  active  duty  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY  1992 
selection board.  While  it may  be  true that  the applicant had  one 
active  duty  OPR  as  a  chaplain  at  the  time  of  his  initial 

6 

AFBCMR 92-01200 

consideration for promotion by the CY 1992 selection board, we note 
that, in addition to the records pertaining to his performance as a 
line officer, the file contained four reports documenting his duty 
performance as a Reserve chaplain not on extended active duty.  The 
CY  1994  selection  board  reviewed  two  additional  active  duty 
reports.  In view of the foregoing, we believe the selection boards 
had  adequate  information  at  their  disposal  on  which  to  make  an 
assessment concerning the applicant‘s promotability in relation to 
his peers. 
4 .   Since we have found no error with respect to the actions taken 
by Air Force authorities in this case, we now turn our attention to 
the  applicant’s allegations  of  injustice.  After  reviewing  the 
information  in  the  available record  and  the  evidence provided  by 
the applicant, we do not  find the evidence sufficient to establish 
the existence of  an injustice.  While  the applicant may  view his 
circumstances as unfair, there is no indication that the courses of 
action  he  elected  were  based  on  coercion or  that  he  was  treated 
unfairly in comparison to similarly situated officers.  We are not 
unappreciative of  the applicant’s devotion to his duties, the Air 
Force  and  the  Nation. 
However,  we  agree  with  the  Air  Force 
analyses  of  this  case  and  find  an  insufficient basis  to  conclude 
that the applicant’s has  suffered an injustice so egregious as to 
warrant  the  reversal  of  decisions  made  by  the  statutorily 
constituted selection boards.  Accordingly, the applicant’s request 
is not favorably considered. 

5.  Since we  have been  able to  revolve the  issues raised  in  this 
appeal based on the written record and no persuasive evidence has 
been  provided  showing that  a  personal  appearance with  or  without 
counsel  will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  matters 
raised  in  the  application,  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 probable material  error or injustice; 
that t h e   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 1 September 1998 under the provisions of  AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Benedict A.  Kausal IV, Panel Chair 
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 

7 

AFBCMR 92-01200 

The following additional documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit F.  DD Form 149, dated 8 December 1997, with 

attachments. 

attachment. 

Exhibit G .   Letter, AFPC/DPPAO, dated 11 February 1998, with 
Exhibit H .   Letter, Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 24 February 1998. 
Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 2  March 1998. 
Exhibit J.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 March 1998. 
Exhibit K.  Counsel's  letter, dated 25 June 1998, with 

attachments and Applicant's  Datafax of 2  July 1998. 

Panel Chair 

8 

AFBCMR 92-01200