ADDENDUM TO 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECOR ves 2 4 1999 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF': 

DOCKET NUMBER:  94-04101 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His  nonselections  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  be  set 
aside;  that  his  CY91B  (P0591B) Lieutenant  Colonel  Promotion 
Recommendation  Form  (PRF) be  upgraded  to  a  Definitely  Promote; 
and, that he be granted promotion to lieutenant colonel. 

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.  A summary of the evidence considered by the 
Board  and  the  rationale  for  its  decision  is  set  forth  in  the 
Record  of  Proceedings,  AFBCMR  94-04101,  which  is  attached  at 
Exhibit G. 
On 2 December 1996, the applicant requested the Board reconsider 
his request based on new evidence.  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  directive 
(Exhibit H) . 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The Board erred by not  setting aside the promotion nonselection 
he had incurred at the original selection board. 
Even though his CY91 PRF was upgraded from a "Do Not Promote This 
Board''  to  a  \\Promote," he  was  not  granted  fair  consideration 
because  his  Management  Level  Evaluation  Board  (MLEB) was  never 
allowed to review his PRF during a quality review phase. 
The SSB process is contrary to statute; a required quorum was not 
present; the  illegal original boards  flawed the SSB benchmarks; 
and, the scoring system is clearly arbitrary and capricious. 

In  further  support  of  his  appeal,  he  has  provided  additional 
documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  his  contentions 
(Exhibit H) . 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The applicant  has  five promotion  nonselections to  the  grade  of 
lieutenant colonel by the following Lieutenant Colonel Selection 
Boards:  CY 91B ( 2   Dec 91), CY92B  (16 Nov 92), CY93A  (12 Oct 93), 
CY94A  (11 Oct 94), and CY 96C (8 Jul 96). 
The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the 
grade of lieutenant colonel by  a Special Selection Board  (SSB) , 
which convened on 25 March 1996, for the CY91B Lieutenant Colonel 
Selection Board. 
On 5 August 1996, the applicant submitted a request for voluntary 
retirement, effective 1 December 1996.  On 30 November 1996, the 
applicant  was  relieved  from  active  duty  in  the  grade  of  major 
under the provisions of AFI 36-3203  (Maximum Service or Time-In- 
Grade). 
Applicant  was  subsequently  retired  in  the  grade  of 
major, effective 1 December 1996.  He had completed a total of 20 
years of active service for retkrement. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Air  Force  Evaluations  Board  Recorder,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPEB, 
provided a technical review of the case.  DPPPEB stated that the 
purpose of the Management  Level Evaluation Board  (MLEB) quality 
review  phase  is  to  merely  confirm  the  "Definitely  Promote" 
recommendations  are  awarded  to  "Definitely  Promote"  quality 
records;  however,  they  cannot  make  senior  raters  change  their 
promotion  recommendations.  The quality review phase  can merely 
make  suggestions  to  a  senior  rater. 
The  overall  promotion 
recommendation  and  the  content  of  the  PRF  is  solely  the 
responsibility of  the  senior rater.  DPPPEB stated that  unless 
the applicant provides evidence to the contrary, this contention 
is without  merit.  In order to have  a  PRF rating  upgraded,  it 
requires both  the  concurrence of the  senior rater and  the MLEB 
president, who would provide a quality review look at that time. 
Since  the  applicant's  PRF  was  upgraded  to  a  \'Promote,"  DPPPEB 
assumes this review was accomplished.  The applicant provides no 
support from either his senior rater or MLEB president  that his 
record  warrants  a  "Definitely  Promote" recommendation.  Unless 
further evidence is provided, DPPPEB recommended the applicant's 
"Promote" recommendation stand  (Exhibit I) . 
The  Selection Board  Secretariat,  HQ  AE'PC/DPPB,  stated that  the 
statute does not  address the issue of voting/nonvoting members. 
The applicant's  central boards and  SSBs were  in compliance with 
the  statute.  Applicant's  claim that  the  SSB benchmark  records 
are tainted is without merit.  The benchmark records used in the 
SSB  process  are  selected  in  accordance  with  applicable 

2 

94-04101 

directives.  The  scoring system used  during  the  SSB process  is 
the  exact  same one used  on the central board process and  is in 
keeping  with  governing  directives. 
DPPB  disagrees  with  the 
applicant's numerous accusations that the Air  Force's  promotion 
board  process  is  in  violation  of  10  U.S.C. 
It  has  been 
determined that the process and procedures comply with applicable 
policy  (Exhibit J) . 
The Senior Attorney-Advisor, HQ AFPCIJA, reviewed the applicant's 
request  for  reconsideration and  recommended  denial.  JA  stated 
that by  regulation, the only basis upon which an application can 
be  reconsidered  is  if  and  when  the  applicant  submits  "newly 
discovered  relevant  evidence  that  was  not  available  when  the 
application  was  previously  considered."  The  applicant  has 
submitted nothing that meets  this \\criterion;" his brief  offers 
no new evidence, but only a series of arguments supported almost 
exclusively by  the author's  opinions.  It  is JA's  opinion that 
the  applicant  has  failed  to  meet  the  requisite  regulatory 
standard for reconsideration. 
JA  opines  that  the  applicant  has  failed  to  prove  an  error  or 
injustice warranting relief.  The applicant claims error because 
the AFBCMR afforded him exactly what he requested in his initial 
request.  Notwithstanding, he now claims he was not afforded full 
and fitting relief because his nonselections for promotion by the 
CY91B  and  later  lieutenant  colonel boards  were  not  set  aside. 
Traditionally, this Board has not voided promotion nonselections 
upon  the  determination  of  an  error  in  the  record  warranting 
special  selection  board  consideration  in  accordance  with  10 
U.S.C., Section 628.  Indeed, "it is well  settled that the mere 
voidance of OERs does not mandate voidance of prior passovers .... 
JA would  submit that the same holds true for the voidance of a 
PRF. 
JA  provided  a  detailed  response  to  the  applicant's  numerous 
contentions  concerning  MLEB  procedures,  SSBs being  contrary  to 
statute and DoD Directive; and, his request for direct promotion. 
For  the  reasons outlined  in the evaluation,  it  is JA's  opinion 
that the applicant's  request for reconsideration should be denied 
since  he  has  failed  to  meet  the  requisite  criteria  for 
reconsideration; and, on the merits, the applicant has failed to 
present  relevant  evidence  of  any  error  or  injustice warranting 
relief. 
A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit K. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

AFPC/JA does not explain how documents like the Roane decision or 
any information about the selection board process  (upon which it 
relies)  were  available. 
This  is  a  major  problem  for  AFPC, 
particularly the lack of standard operating procedures  (SOPS) for 
The  "Quality  Review 
selection  board  operations  and  support. 

3 

94-04101 

Process" detailed  in his  package was  not  even mentioned  in any 
regulation until  1996!  He  has  provided  evidence  and  AFPC  has 
provided  nothing,  although  such  documentation  is  not  only 
required to exist, but to have been approved by SAF. 
He again believes the evidence is clear.  When the Board directed 
correction of his  PRF, the Board  should also have  directed set 
aside  of  all  the  nonselections  he  had  received  to  lieutenant 
colonel.  He therefore asks the Board to direct set aside of his 
nonselections  and  upgrade  his  PRF  to  a  "Definitely  Promote" 
recommendation.  While  he  acknowledges  senior  raters  may  add 
their "own" stratification comments, i. e. , how  the senior rater 
believes  the  officer  ranked  among  his  review  group,  there  is 
absolutely  no  provision  for  MAJCOM  indorsement  or  'special' 
promote  recommendations. 
As  the  evidence  demonstrated  the 
'special'  promote  recommendations  effectively  'took  away' 
promotions  from  officers  who  receive  legitimate  promote 
recommendations, there is no way his record can compete on a fair 
and equitable basis.  He therefore asks the Board to upgrade his 
PRF  for  the  94  Colonel  Boards  to  a  "Definitely  Promote" 
recommendation. 
The  statute  does  not  address  the  issue  of 
voting/nonvoting members.  Common  sense, however, dictates that 
the quorum requirement was for the voting membership as the board 
president  is limited to "administrative duties" approved by  the 
In  effect,  AFPC  is  advocating  an  "election"  without 
SAF. 
"registered  voters''  -  which  is  certainly  not  contemplated  by 
statute.  He did not claim the benchmark records were selected in 
violation  of regulation, rather that they were  chosen arbitrary 
and capriciously.  AFPC however avoids that issue. 
Based upon the evidence and the facts, he must conclude the SSBs 
which  considered  his  record  were  held  contrary  to  law. 
Additionally,  given  the  clear  errors  at  the  original  board 
detailed  in  his  response,  the  SSB  process  does  not  present  a 
viable avenue for resolution of his case.  He therefore asks the 
Board to not only set aside the nonselections, he also asks the 
Board to correct his record to reflect selection for promotion to 
lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY91B  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection 
Board. 
A complete copy of this response is appended at Exhibit M. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1..  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.  We 
have  carefully  considered the  applicant's  request  and  his  most 
recent  submission in  judging  the merits  of  the  case.  In this 
respect, we  find  insufficient  evidence  which  would  lead  us  to 
believe  that the applicant's  consideration for promotion to the 
grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  was  contrary  to  the  pertinent 
provisions of the governing regulation, which implements the law. 
The applicant's  numerous contentions concerning his nonselections 
for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel,  upgrade  of  his  P0591B 

4 

94-04101 

Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF), the statutory compliance of 
central  selection  boards,  the  legality  of  the  promotion 
recommendation process, and the legality of the SSB process have 
been duly noted.  However, we find that the detailed comments by 
the  appropriate  Air  Force  offices  adequately  address  these 
issues. 
The  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence  which 
successfully  disputes  HQ  AFPC/JA' S  interpretation  of  law  or 
showing  that he  was  inequitably treated when  compared to other 
similarly  situated  officers. 
We  therefore  agree  with  the 
opinions and recommendations of the respective Air  Force offices 
and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our conclusion 
that the applicant failed to sustain his burden of establishing 
the  existence  of  either  an  error  or  an  injustice  warranting 
favorable action on 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  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 14 October 1998,  under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Charles E.  Bennett, Member 
Ms. Martha Maust, Member 

The following 
G. 
H. 
I. 
J. 
K. 
L. 
M. 

Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 

documentary evidence was considered: 

Record of Proceedings, dated 19 Sep 95. 
Letter from applicant, dated 2 Dec 96, w/atchs. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 16 Oct 97. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 5 Feb 98. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 16 Apr 98. 
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 22 Apr 98. 
Letter from applicant, dated 22 Jun 98, w/atchs. 

. 

Panel Chair 

5 

9 4 - 0 4 1 0 1