r 

SECOND ADDENDUM 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

SEP 1 I1998 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  95-01482 
COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
His  records  be  corrected  to  show  he  was  either  selected  for 
promotion by the CY 1996 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which 
convened  on  4 March  1996,  or, he  receive  supplemental promotion 
consideration for that board; or, in the alternative, his date of 
rank as a captain be changed from 27 May 1981 to 15  February 1982 
and he be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of major by the 
appropriate selection boards based on this change. 

RESUME OF THE CASE: 
The applicant is a member of the Regular Air Force who is serving 
on active duty  in the grade  of  major.  His Total Active  Federal 
Military Service Date is 24 November 1981.  He has been considered 
and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by 
three selection boards.  He has an established date of  separation 
of 30 November 2001. 
On  17  April  1995,  the  applicant  submitted  an  application  for 
correction of his military records requesting that his date of rank 
as a captain be  changed from 27 May  1981 to 15 February  1982  and 
that his date of rank as a major be changed from 1 November 1988 to 
1 February 1989.  He asserted that the changes to his dates of rank 
as  a  captain  and  major  in  November  1992  made  him  eligible  for 
consideration  for promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel by  the  CY  1994 
lieutenant  colonel  selection board, which  convened  on  11  October 
1994, and that, as a consequence, he did not have sufficient time 
to  complete  Air  Command  and  Staff  College  (ACSC)  before  t h e  
selection board  convened.  His  nonselection by  the  CY  1994 board 
then  had  an  negative  impact  on  his  future  assignments  and  his 
ability to build a competitive record.  In his rebuttal, he  noted 
that  a  similarly-situated  officer' s  case  was  considered  by  t h e  
Board in 1984 and the Board determined that the DOR as a captain, 
the  same  date  he  entered  active  duty,  was  correct.  The  Board 
considered and denied the applicant's requests on 7 September 1995. 
For a summary of the relevant facts extracted from the applicant's 
records  and  the  Board's  rationale  in  this  matter,  see  AFBCMR 
95-01482, dated 25 September 1995, with Exhibits A through E. 

In  1996,  through  a  member  of  Congress,  the  applicant  requested 
reconsideration of his case.  His application was reconsidered and 
denied by the Board on 23 July 1996  (see the Addendum to the Record 
of Proceedings, dated 26 September 1996, with Exhibit F). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The adjustment of his date of  rank as a captain has caused him to 
be the victim of a promotion injustice. 
In  further  support  of  his  application,  he  provided  a  personal 
statement, a background  paper  and  a  position  paper,  in which  he 
reiterated  and  elaborated  on  his  initial  contentions,  documents 
pertaining  to  the  Board's  consideration  of  an  appeal  by  a 
similarly-situated officer, a supportive statement, and  documents 
contained in his Officer Selection Record  (OSR) .  A complete copy 
of the applicant's  submission is at Exhibit G. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Personnel  Procurement  and  Development  Division,  AFPC/DPPA, 
reviewed  the  applicant's  most  recent  submission  and  recommended 
denial. 
After  summarizing  the  applicant's  requests  and 
contentions, and providing background concerning the action in 1992 
to change the applicant's date of rank as a captain, DPPA indicated 
that  Professional Military  Education  (PME) is  not  a requisite to 
meet a promotion board and each officer is responsible for deciding 
when  and  if  to  complete  it.  Further, the  exact  reason  for  an 
officer's  nonselection cannot  be  pinpointed  since  it  is based  on 
several factors in the whole person concept.  Since PME is one of 
the factors considered, DPPA addressed the applicant's inability to 
complete ACSC. 

DPPA is of the opinion that the applicant is using faulty hindsight 
to allege that the change to his date of rank and resultant change 
in promotion eligibility negatively impacted his plan  to complete 
ACSC  before  his  In-the-Promotion Zone  ( I P Z )   lieutenant  colonel 
promotion consideration in 1996.  DPPA stated that it is true that 
if his date of rank had not been changed, the events that unfolded 
would have resulted in his IPZ board being in CY 1996.  However, in 
the  late 1980's  and early  1 9 9 0 ' ~ ~  he  had  no way  of  knowing this. 
DPPA provided documentation from that period that projects his I P z  
board for CY 1994.  They analyzed chaplains who had their I P Z   board 
accelerated due  to  the  same audit and  found the majority  of  them 
completed ACSC prior to CY 1994. 
DPPA  related  the  changes  to  the  IPZ  Promotion  Board  Projection 
charts  for  the  years  in question and  stated  that,  in  1992,  the 
applicant was newly projected to be IPZ in CY 1994.  The applicant 
enrolled  in  ACSC  by  correspondence  in  March  1992. 
In November 

2 

AFBCMR 95-01482 

b 

C 

1992, he was notified that his date of rank as a captain would be 
changed to almost a year earlier and he was entitled to a special 
selection board  (SSB) for the CY  1987  Major  board.  DPPA  stated 
that  he  should  have  known then  that  if  selected by  the  CY  1987 
board,  his  IPZ  lieutenant  colonel  consideration would  accelerate 
from CY  1994  to CY  1993.  He was  disenrolled  from ACSC  in March 
1993  for not  completing the first three portions within one year. 
His CY  1987  SSB was held  in August  1993  and  it  was  announced  in 
October 1993 that the applicant was selected.  However, sometime in 
1993,  it  was  announced  there  would  be  no  CY  1993  Chaplain 
Lieutenant  Colonel  board,  therefore,  the  applicant  was  newly 
projected to be IPZ in CY 1994.  He reenrolled in ACSC in October 
1993 and completed Part 1 in July 1994.  He was nonselected by the 
CY 1994 Lieutenant Colonel board held on 11 October 1994.  Sometime 
in late 1994,  it was announced there would be no CY 1995  Chaplain 
Lieutenant Colonel  board,  therefore, had  he  been  allowed  to  keep 
his  original  date  of  rank,  his  IPZ board  would  have  been  in  CY 
1996.  The applicant completed ACSC Part 2 in January 1996 and Part 
3  in February 1996. 
Based on the scenario provided, DPPA stated it  is not possible to 
guarantee when an officer's  IPZ board will  be  held.  However, it 
appears  evident  that  if  the  applicant  was  truly  serious  about 
getting ACSC  completed before his  IPZ board, his plan would  have 
called for completing it prior to CY 1993 or CY 1994, not CY 1996. 
DPPA found six other chaplains still on active duty whose promotion 
eligibility was  moved  up  to within  four years of  when  they were 
notified of  the DOR change.  They had  the  same promotion and  PME 
information the  applicant had  during  the  8 8 - 9 2   timeframe  and  are 
compared to the applicant in a matrix provided as Attachment  7  to 
the DPPA advisory opinion. 

Concerning  the  evidence provided  by  the  applicant  related  to  the 
similarly-situated officer whose case was considered by the Board, 
DPPA stated that the advisory opinion provided in that case to the 
Board  in  1984  was  in  error. 
That  officer's  date  of  rank  of 
15 February  1982  was  incorrect  as  he  had  claimed,  however,  the 
advisory  stating  that  it  was  correct  was  based  on  a 
misinterpretation of the regulation.  Also, the officer's erroneous 
date  of  rank  should  have  been  caught  during  the  92-93  audit, 
however, it was not.  In DPPA's  opinion, this does not negate the 
fact  that  the  applicant  and  the  other  407  non-line  officers  had 
their  records  adjusted  to  reflect  the  correct  service  dates  and 
those whose promotion eligibility changed were all put  before the 
correct promotion boards. 
A complete copy of this evaluation is at Exhibit H. 
The Appeals  and  SSB  Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application 
and  concurred with  DPPA's  assessment of  the  case.  DPPPA  stated 
that if the Board finds in the applicant's  favor  (and they do not 
believe  t h e   Board  should) ,  they would  recommend SSB consideration 
rather  than  a  direct  promotion.  Absent  clear-cut  evidence  the 
applicant  would  have  been  a selectee by  the  CY  1996  board,  they 

3 

AFBCMR 95-01482 

believe  that,  except  under  extraordinary  circumstances,  a  duly 
constituted board  applying  the  complete promotion criteria  is  in 
the most  advantageous position to render this vital determination. 
Other  than  his  own  opinions,  the  applicant  has  provided  no 
substantiation for his allegations. 
DPPPA stated that while it may be argued that the fact he did not 
get an opportunity to complete his PME prior to his I P Z   board may 
have  contributed  to his  nonselection, there  is no clear  evidence 
that  it  negatively  impacted  his  promotion  opportunity.  Central 
boards  evaluate  the  entire  officer  selection  record  (OSR) 
(including the promotion  recommendation form, officer performance 
reports, officer  effectiveness reports, training  reports, letters 
of evaluation, decorations, and officer selection brief), assessing 
whole  person  factors  such  as  job  performance,  professional 
qualities,  depth  and  breadth  of  experience,  leadership,  and 
academic  and  professional  military  education. 
DPPPA  is  not 
convinced  the  lack  of  PME  completion was  the  sole  cause  of  the 
applicant's nonselection as pointed out in the DPPA advisory. 
DPPPA noted  that the application was untimely and indicated that , 
in  their  opinion,  it  could  be  dismissed  under  the  equitable 
doctrine of laches. 
The complete DPPPA opinion is at Exhibit I. 
The  Staff  Judge  Advocate,  AFPC/JA,  reviewed  this  submission and 
recommended denial of applicant's requests on the merits.  JA noted 
the  applicant's  belief  that  he  suffered  an  injustice because  an 
error in another officer's record was not corrected.  In JA's view, 
the  fact that  another similarly-situated officer's  record was not 
corrected is irrelevant to the Board's  consideration in this case. 
The  applicant  makes  no  attempt  to  tie  this  event  to  any 
disadvantage that he personally was subject to and they are unable 
to discern such a connection.  (Apparently Major Seaman has retired 
and has not requested that his record be  corrected since the  1992 
audit occurred.) 
JA stated that the applicant's  surprise by the early promotion date 
and his assertion that his plan to complete ACSC in time for the CY 
1996 board was adversely impacted is more problematic.  There is no 
doubt  that  the  Air  Force  was  negligent  in  miscomputing  the 
applicant's correct date of rank as a captain, especially in light 
of  the  fact  that  he  questioned  its  correctness  on  two  prior 
occasions and was informed it was correct as set.  After reviewing 
the DPPA advisory opinion, JA is convinced that the applicant was 
equally  negligent  and  was  really  a  victim  of  his  own 
procrastination.  The evidence laid out  in the timelines provided 
by DPPA clearly indicates that the date of the promotion board that 
would consider the CY 1988 majors  (the applicant's year group prior 
to the correction of his date of  rank) was a moving  target.  The 
fact  is  that  the  promotion  board  dates  were  projected  and  then 
delayed  on several occasions.  As  early as December  1990,  the  CY 
1988 major  to lieutenant colonel board was projected  for CY  1993. 

4 

AFBCMR 95-01482 

In August 1991, the projection was for a board in CY 1994.  In July 
1992,  the projection was  still  for CY  1994  (at that  time  the CY 
1987  majors  were  projected  for  the  CY  1993  board) .  All  these 
projections were announced, and the applicant was, or should have 
been,  aware  of  them. 
Had  the  applicant  been  prudent  in  his 
planning based on the projection of when he might be considered in 
the primary zone, he would have long planned to have ACSC completed 
and his  record in time  for the projected  CY  1993 board  and most 
certainly by  the  CY  1994  board  date.  Since the  1987 year group 
(the applicant's  year group after the changes to his dates of rank) 
ended up being considered by the CY 1994 board, the year the 1988 
year group had been projected for over several years, the applicant 
would not have been impacted had he planned on the projected date 
he had  been given.  Further, since no one knew in  1993-1994  that 
there would not be a chaplain lieutenant colonel board  in 1995, it 
is difficult to understand how one would be planning to meet the CY 
1996 instead of the CY 1995 board.  Once again, JA stated that had 
the applicant based his planning  on the published projected board 
dates,  he  would  have  completed  ACSC  before  the  CY  1994  board. 
Another factor to consider is that although the applicant claims he 
was not notified of his date of rank change to major until November 
1993,  in fact, he was notified in November 1992  of  the change to 
his date of rank as a captain and was informed he would meet an SSB 
for promotion by  the CY  1997 board.  JA indicated that a prudent 
person  would  have  planned  on  the  possibility  of  promotion  and 
positioned himself accordingly. 
Even  though  the  Board  has  the  authority  to  remedy  injustice, in 
JA's view, because of the applicant's lack of diligence in pursuing 
the completion of ACSC  prior  to projected  dates of  the promotion 
boards he might  be required to meet, his case does not  come close 
to  "shocking  the  conscience."  JA  is  of  the  opinion  that  an 
injustice  deserving  of  correction  has  not  been  proven  by  the 
applicant. 
Should  the  Board  find  in  the  applicant's  favor, JA  recommended 
against direct promotion.  If  the Board determines that relief is 
appropriate ,  JA  recommended  that  the  applicant 
I  s  records  be 
corrected by changing his service date and dates of  rank to those 
he  originally held  and  then direct an SSB  for the  CY  1996  board 
where his record would  appear with his completed PME  as a primary 
zone consideration. 
The complete JA review is at Exhibit J. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  applicant  reviewed  the  advisory  opinions  and,  noting  DPPA's 
citation of laches, indicated that they overlooked the fact that he 
filed his original complaint on 17 April  1995,  only a year and a 
half after being notified of his new date of rank as a major.  He 
was  deployed when  the  SSB met  and, although not provable, he  did 

5 

AFBCMR 95-01482 

s 

c 

not know the SSB was meeting.  He did not know the impact it would 
have on his future.  The first nine months of  1994, he was working 
to  accelerate his ACSC  prior  to  the  CY  1994 board  and  the  last 
three  months  he  was  serving  as  a  senior  chaplain with  a  staff 
reduced by deployments. 
The  applicant  stated  that  JA  failed  to  understand  that  his 
projected plan was  to  finish ACSC  prior  to  the board  immediately 
after  the  CY  1994  board.  He  thought  there would  be  a  CY  1995 
board.  The assumption that a chaplain will know a lengthy time in 
advance when a promotion board will meet is untrue.  In addition to 
being untrained in personnel actions, a base chaplain does not have 
access  to  AFPC  records,  has  a  vague  knowledge  of  promotion 
projections, and does not have the time to invest in research due 
to a demanding workload. 
The applicant stated that a key question is the importance of ACSC 
for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  For a junior captain, there 
was  a  mixed  message. 
Senior  chaplains  felt  that  doing  PME 
indicated a registration and quitting ACSC is noted by DPPA.  Their 
timeline  does  not  mention  his  six-month  suspension  from  failing 
part B, the price of trying to accelerate the course completion. 
DPPA  is of  the opinion that there is no case connection between his 
case and Major  S--Is  case, but  they recommend that  he  would  have 
appealed  upon  the  basis  of  his  change  in  date  of  rank.  They 
validate  the  connection  with  their  statement. 
Chaplain  S - -  
testified in writing that he was fully informed, believed that the 
ruling  was  absolute, and  applied equally to  him  (the applicant). 
The  applicant  stated  that  J A   ignored  the  legal  understanding  of 
precedent, yet  precedence  by  foreknowledge  and  acceptance  is  an 
important part of his case. 
He believes it is shocking that the military system can ignore the 
precedent set by the Board, the appeals to AFPC  for correction, and 
then  when  the  time  for  correction has  passed  to  correct  to  the 
detriment of the service member.  In his opinion, this constitutes 
an injustice and he requests that the Board select D P P A ’ s   option A 
and allow him to meet  the CY 1996 board as a major in the primary 
zone. 
The  applicant’s review, and  additional  supportive  statements  and 
letters of appreciation are at Exhibit L. 

THE  BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  As a result of our consideration of  previous submissions by the 
applicant,  we  determined  that  insufficient  evidence  had  been 
presented  to show that  the adjustments to his dates of  rank as a 
captain  based  on  a  records  audit  and  as  a  major  based  on  his 
consideration by an SSB were erroneous or unjust.  We have reviewed 
the  applicant’s amended  requests and  the  information provided  in 

6 

AFBCMR  95-01482 

support of his appeal and do not find the evidence is sufficient to 
reverse  our  earlier  conclusions  concerning  the  propriety  of  the 
actions taken in this case or to find that the applicant has been 
the victim of a promotion injustice. 
2.  The  applicant  continues  in  his  belief  that  he  has  been  the 
victim of a promotion injustice because the adjustment to his date 
of rank as a captain and his subsequent promotion by  SSB to major 
did  not  permit  him  sufficient  time  to  prepare  for  his  IPZ 
consideration  to  lieutenant  colonel.  He  also  believes  that  he 
should be afforded the relief he seeks based  on the findings of a 
panel  in the  case of  another similarly-situated chaplain.  We  do 
not agree. 

a.  While it is true that the error in the form of an incorrect 
DOR as a captain was not discovered in the applicant's  record until 
1992, after his selection for promotion to major, the evidence does 
not establish to our  satisfaction that the applicant's  ability to 
plan  for  or  that  his  reasonable  expectations  concerning his  IPz 
promotion  consideration  to  lieutenant  colonel  were  negatively 
affected  by  the  correction  of  the  error. 
We  have  noted  the 
exhaustive  reviews  of  this  matter  by  the  appropriate  Air  Force 
offices.  It appears that, prior to the correction of the original 
error,  following  his  promotion  to  major,  he  was  projected  to 
undergo  his  IPZ  consideration  to  lieutenant  colonel  in  1994  or 
earlier.  In view of  this evidence, we  find there is no basis  f o r  
the applicant's complaint that after the corrections to his record, 
his IPZ consideration for promotion to lieutenant colonel occurred 
at an earlier time than he would otherwise have expected. 

b.  In response to the DPPA analyses of the projections for his 
IPZ  consideration during  the  period  under  review,  the  applicant 
states that as a chaplain, he only had a  "vague" knowledge of and 
access to such projections.  We believe that  it  is incumbent upon 
Air Force officers in all specialties to assume some responsibility 
for their career progression, especially in the areas of planning 
for  promotion  considerations,  enrollment  in  training  and 
participation in other career enhancing activities.  Other than the 
applicant s  own assertions, there is no indication in the evidence 
provided  that his failure to complete ACSC prior to his  IPZ board 
had  its basis in the results of the internal audit or that  it was 
the result of any improper action by Air Force authorities. 

c.  Evidence has now been provided  attesting  to t h e   fact  that 
the Board's  decision in Chaplain S--'s  case was based  on erroneous 
advice.  We do not  find this evidence requires approval of  relief 
in  this  case. 
The  applicant  has  not  shown  how  an  error  or 
promotion injustice occurred in his case because another officer's 
DOR  remained uncorrected.  No  evidence has  been  provided  showing 
that  the  correction  of  the  records  of  the  applicant  and  o t h e r  
officers affected by the internal audit violated governing laws and 
regulations then in effect, nor has the applicant provided evidence 
showing he was treated inequitably when compared to other officer's 
whose records were corrected as a result of the Air Force's  audit. 

7 

AF'BCMR  95-01482 

(I 

In other words, merely because one officer's  erroneous records were 
not corrected, this fact does not support a finding of inequitable 
treatment in the applicant's  case  (or in the case of all the other 
officers whose records were corrected). 

d.  In view of the above, and in the absence of evidence by the 
applicant which, in our view, successfully refutes the assessments 
of  the  merits  of  this  case  which  are  contained  in the  advisory 
opinions  provided  for  our  review,  the  applicant's  requests  f o r  
reinstatement of his original dates of rank as a captain and major, 
and SSB consideration by the CY 1996 lieutenant colonel board as a 
As  to  the 
first-time  eligible  are  not  favorably  considered. 
applicant I  s  primary request  for a direct promotion by  this Board, 
there  is  nothing  to  indicate  his  record  was  improperly  placed 
before  the  CY  1994  selection  board,  that  his  record  contained 
erroneous or misleading  information, or  that  the  selection board 
was  unable  to  make  a  reasonable  decision  concerning  his 
promotability  in  relationship  to  his  peers.  We  have  noted  the 
favorable  communications  and 
testimonials  concerning  the 
applicant's performance.  However, these statements do not provide 
a proper basis to conclude that the selection board in question was 
unable  to  properly  fulfill  its  statutory  duties  and, therefore, 
that the decision of  the duly constituted promotion board must  be 
overturned.  Accordingly, his request for promotion to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel is denied. 
3.  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 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 24 August  1998 under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603 : 

Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Mike Novel, Member 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 

8 

AFBCMR 95-01482 

. 

I( 

The following additional documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit G .  
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I. 
Exhibit J. 
Exhibit K. 
Exhibit L. 

Letter from the applicant, dated 8 July 1997, with 
attachments. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPA, dated 22 August 1997, with 
attachments. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 4 September 1997. 
Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 29 September 1997. 
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 October 1997. 
Letters from the applicant, dated 17 October 1997, 
with attachment; and, Electronic Communications, 
dated 31 October 1997 and 5 November 1997, with 
attachments. 

P TRICIA J  ZAROD  EWICZ 
Panel Ch  r 

9 

AFBCMR 95-01482