, 

AIR EORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

-- 

DOCKET NUMBER:  93-00357 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

0 4 1993 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1.  All  nonselections  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  major, 
beginning with the CY86B Central Major Board, be set aside. 
2.  He receive  direct  promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  as  if 
selected by  the CY86B Central Major Board. 
3 .   He be reinstated to active duty and awarded all back pay  and 
allowances and all  other entitlements associated by  retroactive 
promotion to major. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
Applicant  alleges the central  major  selection boards, and  the 
special selection boards which considered his record for promotion, 
were held  in dir-ect violation of  statute, DoD Directive and/or Air 
Force Regulations.  Additionally, the scoring system employed by 
these boards was clearly arbitrarily and capriciously established 
not  to provide  fair and equitable consideration, but  rather to 
minimize the potential  for a consideree to gain selection from this 
process.  Applicant believes he has been denied fair and equitable 
consideration and that the nonselections are without effect. 
Applicant's  complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant  has  five promotion  nonselections; CY86B, CY87, CY88, 
CY89, and CY 91 Central Major Boards.  There was no Central Major 
Board  in CY90.  In addition, applicant was  granted  a  Special 
Selection Board,.(SSB) for CY86B and CY87 on 28 March  1988, and a 
SSB for CY89 on 27 April  1992.  Applicant has since been separated 
from the Air Force effective 31 August  1992. 

1 

. 
f

. 

? 

.

.. 

 

.# 

+ 

AIR STAFF EVALUATION: 
The Chief, Apgeals &  Analysis Branch, AFMPC/DPMAJA, states that the 
applicant  asserts to have clearly proven his claimed  injustices. 
However,  his  appeal  reveals  that  his  case  consists  only  of 
unsubstantiated opinions  and  incorrect  interpretations of  both 
personnel  regulations and the law.  Additionally,  it  is  important 
to note that  at  no point  has the applicant claimed  that  there 
exists any uncorrected errors in -- his record.  They believe  it  is 
quite  clear  he  has  received  full  and  fair  consideration  for 
promotion.  They recommend the applicant's  appeal be denied. 
A complete copy of  the Air Staff evaluation is attached at Exhibit 
C. 

APPLICANT'S  REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: 
In summary, applicant  states that the evidence  is clear there is 
no basis to time bar his petition.  He also believes there were 
illegal MLEBs,  illegally conducted Central  Selection boards and 
violation of Air Force Regulations.  Applicant states that clearly 
the facts are not disputed with evidence:  ( 1 )  Specific corrective 
actions is indeed within the purview of the Board,  (2) No evidence 
has been presented which would support the AFMPC recommendation the 
Board not correct his record to promotion, and  (3) without evidence 
to the contrary, it  is clear such promotion should be granted. 
A complete copy of applicant's  response is attached at Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all  remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice. 
Applicant  makes numerous-assertions and challenges the promotion 
board, special selection board and the MLEB process.  However, it 
appears  that  applicant's  assertions  are  based  solely  on 
unsubstantiated opinions and incorrect  interpretations of  the law 
and regulations.  The Chief, Appeals and Analysis Branch, in his 
advisory of  4  February 1993, has accurately addressed these issues 
and  we  are  in  complete  agreement  with  his  comments  and 
recommendat ions . 
4.  With  regard  to applicant's  issue concerning the  impact  the 
voided  13 May  1983 OER  had on his assignments, we observe that 
there is no assignment policy which prescribes that a member with a 

. 

b 

voided OER be considered for assignment any differently than other 
officers.  Based on the correction of his records, we are convinced 
he has becn  afforded appropriate relief and his records were given 
fair and equitable consideration for assignments.  In the absence 
of  substantial  evidence to the contrary, we  find no compelling 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 
5.  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  issue(s)  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 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 this application  in 
Executive Session on 4 June 1993, under the provisions of AFR 31-3: 

Martin H. Rogers, Panel Chairman 
Vladimir W. Culkowski, Member 
Teddy- L. Houston, Member 
-

 

-

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Jul 92, with atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's  Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJA, dated 4 Feb 93. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Feb 93. 
Exhibit E.  Applicant's  Letter, dated 19 Apr 93, with atchs. 

-  m*$flp 

MARTIN H. ROGE 
Panel Chairman 

3 

(- 
ti . 

AIR FORCE  BOARD  FOR  CORRECTION  OF MILITARY  RECORDS 

RECORD  OF  PROCEEDINGS 

I N   !l!HE  MATTER OF: 

DOCRET  NUMBER: 

90-02695 

COUNSEL: 
HEARING DESIRED: 

NONE 

NO 

- - . -  

jijL 0 2  m 

t o   t h e   grade  of  major  as 
(CY)  1986B  s e l e c t i o n   board  or  by 

APPLICANT  RBOUESTS  =AT: 
H e   be  promoted 
Calendar  Year 
s e l e c t i o n   board. 
If  h i s   above  r e q u e s t   are  n o t   granted,  he  r e q u e s t s   t h a t - t h e   0489A 
Promotion  Recommendation  For  (PRF)  be  upgraded 
t o   d e f i n i t e l y  
promote 
(DP)  and  he  be  considered  f o r   promotion  t o   t h e   grade  of 
major  by  Special  S e l e c t i o n  Board  (SSB)  f o r   t h e   CY89'Majoz Board. 

i f   selected  by  t h e  
t h e   CY  1989 

APPLICANT  CONTENDS !CE€AT: 
1.  Although  the  u n j u s t   Officer  E f f e c t i v e n e s s   Report  ( O m )  c l o s i n g  
13 May  1983  has  been  removed  from  h i s   records,  there  i s   a b s o l u t e l y  
no  way  f o r   him  t o   go  back .-and  g e t   those  higher  headquarters  and 
His 
special  duty  assignments  -and  g e n e r a l   o f f i c e r   indorsements. 
records  are  there  for  e t e r n i t y   and  d e c i s i o n s   a f f e c t i n g   him  w i l l   be 
based  on  t h e   c o n t e n t s   of  t h o s e   records. 
t o   t h e   grade  of  major  as  if 
H e   states  t h a t   by  promoting  him 
' selected  by  t h e   CY86B  board  would  completely  e l i m i n a t e   t h e   c h r o n i c  
Most  i m p o r t a n t l y ,  
i n j u s t i c e s   h e   h a s   e x p e r i e n c e d .  
i t   would 
immediately  s t o p   t h e   d i s c r i m i v a t i o n ,  
s l i g h t s   and  o v e r s i g h t s  
endured  f o r   the  p a s t   4  y e a r s   f o r   being  a  non- selectee. 
Outright 
promotion  by 
t h e  
c o r r e c t i v e   a c t i o n s   mentioned  above,  b u t   he  would  s t i l l   be  s u b j e c t  
t o   f u r t h e r   d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,   s l i g h t s   and  o v e r s i g h t s   because  of  h i s  
t o t a l   a c t i v e   federal  commissioned  s e r v i c e   date  of  30  September 
1976  would  reflect  t h a t   it  took  13  y e a r s   t o   be  promoted 
t o   t h e  
grade  of  major  i n s t e a d   of  the  usual  10- year  norm. 

t h e   CY89  board  would  a c c o m p l i s h   much  of 

A t   t h e   t i m e   he  was  considered  f o r   a  promotion  recommendation, 
2. 
h i s   c u r r e n t   Officer  Performance  Report 
i n   h i s  
recor'dsB which  is  c o n t r a r y   t o   AFR  36-10,  p a r a   409a. 
A s   a  res'ult 
t h e   PRF  t h a t   was 
of  h i s   senior  rater  not  s e e i n g   t h e   l a t e s t   OPR, 
w r i t t e n   c o n t a i n s   no  specifics  of  h i s   d u t y   performance  during  t h e  
previous  nine  months  w h i l e   assigned  t o  RAF  Upper  Heyford. 
H e   a l s o  
"states  t h a t   t h e   OPR was  n o t   reviewed  by  t h e   CY89 s e l e c t i o n   board. 
S i n c e   h e   d i d   n o t   g e t   a 

(OPR)  was  n o t  

chance 

t o   compete 

f a i r l y   w i t h  

7 3 - 0 0 3 5 3  

temporaries 
should  be 
criteria 

a t   RAF  Upper  Heyford  for  a  DP  recornendation,  h i s  
con 
PRF 
H e   b e l i e v e s   t h a t   h e   h a s   m e t   a l l  
upgraded  t o   a  DP. 
>cor  meeting  a  SSB, 
Meeting 
t h i s   board  without 
t h e  
upgrading  h i s   PRF  does  n o t   c o r r e c t   t h e   v i o l a t i o n s   of  r e g u l a t i o n s  
governing  t h e   promoti on  recommendation' process, 
I n   support  of  h i s   appeal,  h e   has  provided  a  personal  statement, 
w i t h   42  attachments. 
H i s   complete  submission  i s   attached  a t  
E x h i b i t   Am 

STATEMENT  OF FACTS: 
Applicant  is  c u r r e n t i y   serving  on  extended  a c t i v e   duty 
grade  of c a p t a i n ,  
H i s   was  considered  b u t   n o t   selected  f o r   promotion  t o   t h e   grade  of 
major  by  t h e   CY86  and  CY87  s e l e c t i o n   boards. 
t h e   p r o v i s i g n   of 
I n   1986,  a p p l i c a n t   submitted  a p p l i c a t i o n s   under 
requesting  t h a t   t h e   Article  15  issued  t o   him,  i n -  A p r i l  
AFR  31-3, 
1983  t h e   Officer  E f f e c t i v e n e s s   Report  (OER)  c l o s i n g   13 fiay  1983  be 
On  29  September  1987,  t h e   Board  considered  and 
declared  void, 
denied  h i s  request, 
On  2  March  1988, 
(OER)  c l o s i n g  
13 May  1983  was  declared  void  and  removed  fzom  h i s   r e c o r d s   by  t h e  

Officer  Personnel  Records  Review  Board  (OPRRB) . 

t h e   Officer  E f f e c t i v e n e s s   Report 

( E x h i b i t   C) 

i n   t h e  

Based  on  t h e   removal  of  t h e   13  May  1983 OER,  a p p l i c a n t   requested 
and  received  Spec-ial  S e l e c t i o n   Board 
(SSB)  considered  f o r   t h e   CY 
86  and  CY  87  boards;  h-wever,  he  was  nonselected  by  both  boards. 
On  30  March  1988,  a p p l i c a n t   submitted  an  a p p l i c a t i o n   under  AFR 
requesting  t h a t   he  either  be  promoted  t o   t h e   grade  of major, 
31-3, 
select.ed  for  s e l e c t i v e   c o n t i n u a t i o n   on  a c t i v e   duty  or  h i s   two 
n o n s e l e c t i o n s   f o r   p r o m o t i o n  
H i s  
a p p l i c a t i o n   was  considered  i n   Executive  Session  on  27  April.  '1988 
and  t h e   Board  recommended  his records  be  corrected  t o   show  t h a t   he 
was  selected  for  c o n t i n u a t i o n   as  an  exception 
t o   A i r   Force 
policy. 
t h e  
Board's  recommendation  on  28  A p r i l   1988. 
H e   was  considered  b u t   n o t   selected  f o r   promotion  t o   t h e   grade  of 
There  was  no  CY90 
major  by 
Major  Board, 

The  Deputy  for  A i r   Force  Review  Boards  approved 

t h e   CY88,  and  CY89  s e l e c t i o n   boards. 

t o   major  be  s e t   aside. 

(Exhibit  I)) 

.:. ' 

.:. ' 

1. 

\, 

b, 

2 

93 -Do 35-7 

3 '  

H i s  OERS/OPRS 

s i n c e   1980  are  a6  follows: 

2- 

PERIOD  ENDING 
24  J a n   1980 
1 Jun  1980 
1 May  1981 
1 3  M a r   1982 
13 May  1982 
13 Zay  1983 
17  O c t   1983 
17  O c t   1984 
17  O c t  1985 
26  Gun  1986 
# 
26  Jun  1987 
# #  
7  Mar  1988 
# # i  
####  1 Nov 1988 
27  Aug  1989 

OVERALL  EVALUATION 

- 

1-1-1 
1-1-1 
-  1-1-1 
1-0-1 
Training  Report 
Voided  R e p o r t  

1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 

(OPR) 

Meets  Standard 
Meets  Standard 

#  - Top  OER  on  f i l e  a t  t i m e   of  t h e  CY86  board. 
# #   - Top  OER  on  f i l e  a t   t i m e   of  t h e   CY87  board. 
#e# - Top  OER  on  f i l e  a t  t i m e   of  t h e   CY88  board. 
# # # #   - Top  OER  on  f i l e  a t   t i m e   of  t h e   CY89  board,  which 

convened  on  4  December  1989. 

- 

e 

1, 

*- - 

-.. 

comments 

The  OER  c l o s i n g   7  March  1988,  contained  t e c h n i c a l   flaws  i n   t h e  
i n d o r s e r ' s  
r e p o r t s   and 
r a t i n g s ) .  
The  OPR c l o s i n g   27  August  -1989  was  placed  i n   his Officer  S e l e c t i o n  
Folder  OB  18  January  1990  and  was  n o t   considered  by 
t h e   CY  89 
board. 

( L e .   commenting  on  previous 

AIR STAFF EVALUATION: 

reviewed 

i n d i c a t e d  

t h i s   request. 

t h i s   a p p l i c a t i o n   and 

t h a t   they 
AFMPC/DPMAJA 
f i n d   no  basis  f o r   a  direct  promotion  and  s t r o n g l y   recommend  d e n i a l  
They  support  r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n   by  t h e   CY89  board 
of 
on  t h e   basis  t h e   27  August  1989  OPR  was  n o t   i n   t h e   a p p l i c a n t ' s  
record  when  he  m e t  
They  do  n o t   support 
upgrading  h i s   0489A  PRF  u n l e s s   s t r o n g l y   supported  by 
t h e   s e n i o r  
rater  and  MLm  president. 
I n   regards  t o   t h e   7  March  1988  OER,  they  support  r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n  
by  . t h e  CY88  board  i f   t h e   i n d o r s e r   amends  h i s   comments. 
A  complete  copy  of  t h e   e v a l u a t i o n   is attached  a t  E x h i b i t   E. 

t h e   c e n t r a l   board. 

\ 

\ 

.*. - 

. 

3 

@-00  35-7 

1 

indicated, 

t h a t   an 

t h e  

i n j u s t i c e   never  occurred. 

The  Board  attempted 

t h e   A i r   S t a f f   evaluation  and 

t h a t   t h e   A i r -  Force  acknowledged 

APPLICANT'S  R]Fv IEW OF  A I R   STAFF  EWALUATION: 
i n  
Applicant  reviewed 
summary, 
i n j u s t i c e  
t o   p u t   him  back  on  a  career 
occurred. 
progression  path  as 
As  h e  
explainad,  h i s   records  were  t a i n t e d   w i t h   t h e   u n j u s t   OER. 
AFMPC 
i n j u s t i c e s   h e   h a s  
t b   address 
f a i l e d  
expeniaaced  and  a l s o   f a i l e d   t o   adequately  compensate  f o r   these 
Be  submits  t h e   only  relief  he  perceive  a p p r o p r i a t e  
i n j u s t i c e s .  
f o r   these  i n j u s t i c e s   he  h a s   experienced  is  promotion  t o   major. 
T h a t   i c   t h e   only  f a i r   mechanism  a v a i l a b l e   t o   compensate  for  t h e  
i n j u s t i c e s   h e   bas encountered  and  allow  him  t o   p u t   h i s   career  B s k  
on  a  path  where  he  can  compete  w i t h   h i s  peers* 
Applicant's  complete  response,  w i t h   attachements, 
E x h i b i t   G. 

i f  
t h e   p a s t   o r   p r e s e n t  

i s   attached  . a t  

THE  BOARD  CONCLUDES  THAT: 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  a l l   remedies  provided  by  e x i s t i n g  
law  or  regulations. 
2.  The  a p p l i c a t i o n  was  timely  f i l e d .  
3. 
S u f f i c i e n t   r e l e v a n t   evidence  has  been  presented  t o   demonstrate 
t h e   e x i s t e n c e   of  probable  error  or  i n j u s t i c e   warranting  promotion 
consideration  by  SSB  f o r  
t h e   CY89 
s e l e c t i o n   board. 
t h i s  
respect,  w e   n o t e - t h a t   t h e   a p p l i c a n t ' s   OPR  c l o s i n g   27  August  1989, 
was  n o t   a  matter  of'  record  a t   t h e  
t i m e   h e   was  considered  f o r  
promotion  t o   t h e   grade  of  major  by 
t h e   CY  89  s e l e c t i o n   board. 
Therefore,  w e   recommend  h i s   record, 
t h e   OPR  i n  
question,  be  considered  by  a  SSB. 

t o   i n c l u d e  

I n  

t h e   e x i s t e n c e   of  probable  error  or 

I n s u f f i c i e n t   r e l e v a n t   e v i d e n c e   h a s   been  p r e s e n t e d  
i n j u s t i c e  

t o  
4 0  
i n  
demonstrate 
regards  t o   h i s   request  f o r   a  direct  promotion 
t o   t h e   grade  of 
major  o r   h i s   a l t e r n a t i v e   r e q u e s t  
t h a t   h e   be  g i v e n   a  "DPR 
W e   n o t e   t h a t   t h e   OER  c l o s i n g   13  May  1983  was 
recommendation. 
removed  from  h i s   records  by  the  OPRRB  and  a p p l i c a n t   was  provided 
SSB  consideration  for t h e   CY  86  and  87  s e l e c t i o n   boards  and  h e   was 
W e   a l s o   note  t h a t   t h i s  Board  previously  considered 
n o t   selected. 
and  denied  a  request  from  t h e   a p p l i c a n t   t h a t   he  be  promoted  t o   t h e  
grade  of  major;  however, 
t h a t   h e   should  be 
selected  f o r   continuation  on  a c t i v e   duty.  After  reviewing  a l l   t h e  
f a c t s   involved  i n   t h i s   case,  w e   are  convinced  t h a t   t h e   applikant 
received  f a i r   and  equitable  c o n s i d e r a t i o n   f o r   promotion 
t o   t h e  
grade  of  major  when  he  was  considered  by  SSBs  €or  t h e   CY86  and  87 

it  was  determined 

4 

773-40357 

s e l e c t i o n   boards.  W i t h   regard  t o   h i s   r e q u e s t   t h a t   h i s   promotion 
recommendation  ,be  upgraded  t o   "DP",  w e   n o t e   t h a t   h e   h a s   f a i l e d   t o  
providel  statements  from  his senior  rater  and  t h e   management  l e v e l  
evaluation  board  (MLEB) p r e s i d e n t   compenting  on  what  effects  t h e  
m i s s i n g   OPR  had  on  a p p l i c a n t ' s   c h a n g e s  
"DP" 
recommendation.  Without  supporting  statements8  w e   f i n d   no  basis 
upon  which 
received  a  higher 
recommendation; 
theref ore,  w e   do  n o t   recommend  favorable  a c t i o n   on 
t h i s  porticn a f   h i s   application. 

t h a t   h e   would  have 

t o   conclude 

t o   r e c e i v e   a 

TBE BOARD RECOMMENDS  TTIAT: 
d s   of  the Department  of  t h e   A i r   Force 
The  perti 
r e l a t i n g  
t o   include  t h e   Company  Grade  O f f i c e r  
Performance  Report  for  t h e   period  2  November  1988 
through  27 
August  1989,  be  considered  for promotion  t o   t h e   grade  of --major by 
Special  S e l e c t i o n   Board  for  the  Calendar  Year  1989  Central  Major 
B o a d o  

* 

L. 

The f ollowing  members  of 
E x e c u t i v e   S e s s i o n   on  2 1   May  1991,  under 
paragraph  9,  AFR  31-38  d a t e d   31 May  1985: 

t h e   Board  considered  t h i s   a p p l i c a t i o n   i n  
t h e   p r o v i s i o n s   of 

Mr.  Henry  C.  Saunders,  Panel  Chairman 
Mr.  Ira  Kemp,  Member 
Ms.  Karen  Bingo,  Member 

A l l   memb3rs  voted-  t o   c o r r e c t   t h e   records,  a s   recommended. 
following  documentary  evidence  was  considered: 

The 

E x h i b i t   A. 
E x h i b i t  B o  
Exhibit  C. 
Exhibit  D. 
Exhibit  E. 
Exhibit  F. 
E x h i b i t   G. 

w/  a t c h  s . 

DD  Form  149,  dated  8  May  1990,  w/atchs. 
Applicant  s Master  Personnel  Records. 
Record  of  Proceedings,  dated  26  October  1987, 
Record  of Proceedings,  dated  28  A p r i l   1988, 
w/atchs. 
Letter,  AFMPC/DPMAJA,  dated  13  November  1990. 
Letter,  AFBCMR,  dated  2  J a n   910 
Letter,  Applicant,  dated  28  January  1991, 
w/atchs. 

.; * 
.; . 

Pa e l  Chairman "7 

co SAUNDERS 

5