t
ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 93-01945
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 16 Aug 89 and
28 Jun 90 be replaced with reaccomplished reports.
The Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRF) prepared for
consideration by the CY91B and CY92B Lieutenant Colonel Boards,
which convened on 2 Dec 91 and 16 Nov 9 2 , be upgraded to
"Definitely Promote.
His nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant
colonel be set aside.
He be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel as
though selected by the CY91B Lieutenant Colonel Board.
RESUME OF THE CASE:
The applicant is a former Regular Air Force officer who was
honorably relieved from active duty on 30 Jun 96 and retired in
the grade of major, effective 1 Ju1 96. He had served 20 years
and 29 days on active duty.
On 12 Jul 94, the Board considered and denied a similar appeal by
the applicant (see AFBCMR 93-01945, with Exhibits A through E).
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The contested report OPRs were prepared in violation of
regulatory requirements.
The Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) used illegal
procedures in the promotion recommendation process, in violation
of the governing regulation.
The Air Force Selection Board process violates statute and
Department of the Defense (DOD) directives.
.
A complete copy of the applicant's request for reconsideration is
at Exhibit F.
By letter, dated 15 Nov 95, the applicant submitted additional
documentary evidence for consideration (Exhibit G).
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Pursuant to the Board's request, the Evaluation Procedures
Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed the applicant's most recent
submission and provided an assessment concerning the applicant's
request that his OPRs closing 16 Aug 89 and 28 Jun 90 be replaced
with reaccomplished OPRs. According to DPPPEP, they performed an
extremely thorough review of each point of contention and are
confident in their assessment that the applicant's allegations
lack merit. DPPPEP recommended that the request be denied.
A complete copy of the DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit H.
The Management Level Review Section, AFPC/DPPPEB, reviewed the
applicant's submission and recommended denial of his request for
upgrade of his PRFs. In DPPPEB's view, the new evidence provided
did not substantiate his allegations or prove that he was treated
unfairly by the officer evaluation system or that his record of
performance was tainted.
A complete copy of the DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit I.
The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, reviewed the applicant's
subinission and indicated that, in their view, it failed to meet
Theref ore, the
the requisite criteria for reconsideration.
application should be denied on that basis. On the merits, JA
stated the applicant has failed to present relevant evidence
proving the existence of any error or injustice prejudicial to
his substantial rights. Accordingly, JA recommended denial.
A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit J.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response, the applicant stated in his previous submission
he introduced new evidence which had not been available when he
initially asked the Board for correction of his record. He has
also provided even more new evidence which has come to light.
All he is asking for is for a full and fair hearing on the issues
in his case.
He believes the evidence speaks for itself.
Although the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) attempted to
ignore the issues, their own documents prove the validity of his
position on every ground for relief upon which his petition is
based.
2
AFBCMR 93-01945
Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence
are at Exhibit L.
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. In earlier findings, we determined that there was
insufficient evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding
the applicant's original appeal.
We have reviewed the
applicant's most recent submission and we do not find it
sufficient to override the rationale provided by the Air Force
offices of primary responsibility (OPRs). Therefore, in the
absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, we agree with the
recommendations of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the
basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
his burden of establishing that he has suffered either an error
or an injustice. Accordingly, we again find no compelling basis
to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
2. 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 issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
. ..e
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 s, personEl
appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered
upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence n c t
considered with this application.
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 14 Oct 98, under the provisions of A F I 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F.
Exhibit G.
Exhibit H.
Exhibit I.
Exhibit J.
Letter, applicant, dated 2 May 95, w/atchs.
Letter, applicant, dated 15 Nov 95, w/atchs.
Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 8 Oct 96.
Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 22 Oct 96.
Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 11 Feb 97.
3
AFBCMR 93-01945
Exhibit L.
Exhibit K. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Feb 97.
Letter, applicant, dated 21 Mar 97, w/atchs.
.
7 .
;ic--c*
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ _ _
Panel Chair
4
AFBCMR 93-01945
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02697
A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a detailed response to the Air Force advisory opinions, as well as additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration (Exhibit I). A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit N. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a detailed response to the Air Force advisory opinions, as well as additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration (Exhibit I). A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit N. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-03771 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NEIL B. KABATCHNICK HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Promotion Recommendation (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for consideration by the CY91B Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 2 Dec 91, be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF containing an Overall Recommendation of...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1994-03771
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-03771 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NEIL B. KABATCHNICK HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Promotion Recommendation (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for consideration by the CY91B Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 2 Dec 91, be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF containing an Overall Recommendation of...
(Exhibit D) The Air Force Management Level Review Recorder, AFPC/DPPPEB, recommended denial of applicant's request that his PRF for the CY91B lieutenant colonel board be upgraded to reflect a "Definitely Promote, " stating the applicant was unsuccessful in his request (to the Officer Personnel Records Review Board) to have the OPR closing 29 April 1991 removed; therefore, the PRF should stand. Noting applicant's argument that A i r Force promotion boards - violate 10 USC 616 and 617, JA...
RESUME OF CASE: On 17 August 1995, the Board considered and approved the applicant's request that his PRF for the P0591B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be replaced with a reaccomplished "Promote" PRF and that he be afforded Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration. Applicant is asserting that the Board failed to provide complete relief in its original decision, and that the promotion selection boards that considered his record were not held in compliance with law and...
The applicant has not provided any senior rater or management level 3 AFBCMR 95-01732 . A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a detailed response, counsel indicated that the recommendations for denial were based on the government's assertion that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate that the applicant received "anything but the same fair and equitable treatment in the PRF process that was provided to each 4 AFBCMR...
Air Force officer promotions are a competitive process. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit H. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that his rating chain tried to have the duty title updated in the personnel system before the OPR became a matter of record. He asks the Board to correct his record to reflect selection to major as if selected in the promotion zone by the CY95 Major Board.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01397
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01397 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Promotion Recommendation (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B (CY99B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, indicating a “Promote” recommendation, be replaced with a reaccomplished PRF containing a change to...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-02992
A complete copy of the DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and recommended denial. DPPPA indicated they concurred with AFPC/DPPPEB that the applicant has failed to provide evidence necessary to support his claims of error in his appeal. A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, counsel...