AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I ,
1 J'
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 93-02837
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
/ [ / . " a [ 4 a b Q o
His Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) , rendered for the period
26 Sep 85 through 25 Sep 86, be declared void or void the
ratings and comments of the indorser.
Examiner's Note: Although the applicant has not specifically
identified the ratings he would like voided, it appears from his
supporting documents that he is referring to Section I11
(Performance Factors), Item 1 (Job Knowledge).
PIiTCANT
THAT:
The indorser's ratings and comments are inaccurate and untrue.
The indorser never directly observed his performance nor did he
ever fly with him.
In supporttof his request, applicant submits statements from his
former squadron commander , flight commander and supervisors
(Exhibit A).
Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major, with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Mar 87.
Applicant's OER/OPR profile follows:
Period Endina
*25 Sep 86
25 Sep 87
23 Jun 88
31 May 89
15 Dec 89
#15 Dec 90
##23 Aug 91
### 3 Jun 92
3 Jun 93
* Contested OER (Exhibit
1-1-1
1-1-1
1 - 1 - 1
f Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
Standards
A - L
Meets
Meets
Meets
Meets
Meets
Meets
.
I
,
I
i
I
1
# Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY91A (15 Apr 91) Central
Lieutenant Colonel Board.
## Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY91B (2 Dec 91) Central
Lieutenant Colonel Board.
### Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY92B (16 Nov 92) Central
Lieutenant Colonel Board.
The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, AFMPC/DPMAJ,
reviewed this application and recommended denial. They stated
that this appeal is not timely since the OER closing 25 Sep 86
has been a part of the applicant's .official record for over
seven years.
The applicant provides a statement from the
additional rater of the contested report. While the additional
rater supports the applicant's appeal, he confirms the applicant
had some problems with flying qualifications. He also states
the applicant's performance in the Mission Qualification
Training (MQT) program was satisfactory. They have attached
extracts of the results of a flying evaluation board conducted
8 Jun 87 which determined that the applicant failed to
consistently demonstrate the proficiency required to perform
duties as a combat capable RF-4C pilot between 9 Oct 85 and
26 Nov 8 6 .
This information appears to support the contested
OER statement. The other statements the applicant provides
support his appeal, but they are not from rating chain members,
nor do they prove the contested report is inaccurate.
A
complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D.
A copy of the Air Staff evaluation was forwarded to applicant on
1 Dec 93 for review and response. As of this date, no response
has been received by this office (Exhibit E).
1. The application was not filed within three years after the
alleged error or injustice was discovered, or reasonably could
have been discovered, as required by Section 1552, Title 10,
United States Code (10 USC 1552, and Air Force Regulation 31-3.
Thus the application is untimely.
Fc - 4 3 - c3 2 837
2
2. Paragraph b of 10 USC 1552 permits us, in our discretion, to
excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. We have
carefully reviewed applicant's submission and the entire record,
and we do not find a sufficient basis to excuse the untimely
filing of this application. The applicant has not shown a
plausible reason for delay in filing, and we are not persuaded
that the record raises issues of error or injustice which
require resolution on the merits at this time. Accordingly, we
conclude that it would not be in the interest of justice to
excuse the untimely filing of the application.
The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness.
It is the
decision of the Board, therefore, to reject the application as
untimely .
The following members of the Board considered this application
in Executive Session on 9 Jun 94, under the provisions of AFR
31-3:
G . Hammond Myers, 111, Panel Chairman
Scott W. Stucky, Member
Joseph T. Wagner, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Apr 9 3 , w/atchs.
Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C. Contested Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) .
Exhibit D. Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJ, dated 5 Nov 93, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Dec 93.
Panel Chairman I
G . HAMMOND MYERS, I11
3
"There is no provision of law which specifically requires each promotion board to personally review and score the record of each officer that is being considered by the board ..." was noted by AF/JAG in its opinion addressing the participation of selection board membership in the selection process (copy attached). I' As to the Air Force selection board procedures, applicant stated the evidence, particularly the evidence not disputed by AFMPC, clearly shows the "plain language" of statute,...
By letter of amendment, dated 1 July 1994, applicant requested that the Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) closing 2 August 1975, 29 February 1976, and 28 February 1977, be removed from his records and that he be given consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board. We found no basis to recommend that applicant be reconsidered for promotion based on the issues cited in his requests pertaining to the OERs closing 2 August 1975 and 29 February...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00070
However, he was not selected to the grade of colonel. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEB notes the applicant has not provided a new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior rater and management level evaluation board as required. Also, to suggest that the policy prevented him from being promoted is not warranted as other AFIT attendees, who received training reports, have been promoted to the grade of colonel.
A copy of the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, dated 9 December 1994, is attached at Exhibit F. Applicant has submitted an application, dated 23 September 1997, requesting reconsideration of his earlier request to delete the additional rater's comments from the OERs, for the periods closing 15 June 1987 and 15 June 1988; and, that he receive consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for the CY90A Medical/Dental Lieutenant Colonel Board. In support of his...
AF | BCMR | CY1991 | BC 1991 01818
Reconsideration of Boards previous decision for his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) closing 17 Apr 87 be declared void and removed from his records. The Air Force Military Personnel Center (AFMPC) approved the removal of his duty title, Director of Family Support Center in March 1987; however, a delay in its removal until 17 Mar 88 caused his OSR that met the 15 Jun 87 SSB and another 1987 regular promotion selection board held on 25 Nov 87 to be inaccurate. ...
A summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for it’s decision is set forth in the Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit D. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Significant new evidence provided by the two former Numbered Air Force Commanders provides strong support for his request to add the indorsement of General K---- to the June 1986 OER and the indorsement of General R---- to the May 1987 OER. In preparing the applicant’s 2 Jun 86 Officer Effectiveness...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01112 INDEX CODE: 100.00, 111.01, 131.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be provided promotion reconsideration by the Calendar Year 1998C (CY98C) (1 Dec 98) Central Colonel Board with corrections to his officer selection brief (OSB) and his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) rendered for the period 13 May 83 through 12 May 84. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The...
According to DPPPEB, there was no evidence presented to support the allegations of "illegal" information being considered in the PRF process. Also, there was no official evidence presented to support allegations of '\special" promote recommendations being used to identify officers who should be selected for promotion by the Central Selection Board. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that the evidence proves that his PRF was based on an...
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a statement from the rater explaining how he was improperly influenced to rate the applicant lower than he deserved, and advising that the lower ratings were based on factors other than duty performance. The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFR 31-11 and the appeal was considered and denied by the Officer Personnel Records Review Board (OPRRB). It is further directed that his corrected report...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064525C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 970514-970930 be corrected by deleting the senior rater (SR) comment “Promote when eligible . In formulating an appeal of the subject OER to the OSRB, the applicant contacted the SR and stated that his “Promote when eligible” comment was viewed as negative and had caused his failure to be promoted. He strongly supported the applicant’s appeal and recommended that his words be changed to “Promote to LTC and select...