AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 94-10339
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MAY 2 3 1995
1. Set aside all nonselections to the grade of major by the
Calendar Years 1979 (CY79) and CY80 Central Boards and Special
Selection Boards ( S S B s ) .
2. Promotion to the grade of major as though selected by the
CY79 selection board.
3. Continuation on active duty for a period of time in order to
be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
two selection boards.
4. He receive any and all back pay, allowances, and
entitlements, to include what he would have accrued on extended
active duty.
5. The Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) rendered for the
periods closing 16 March 1975 and 31 July 1978 be declared void.
6 . His record be corrected to reflect continuous active service
from the date he was separated as a result of his illegal
separation until the date of decision of his application and
direct retirement in the grade of major at this point.
As a result of a previous appeal, he was afforded consideration
for promotion to the grade of major by SSB.; however, it appears
that those boards were improperly convened and conducted. Also,
the inequities and regulatory violations of the controlled
Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) system in effect from 1975
until 1978 precluded him from receiving the “fair and equitable1’
consideration guaranteed by statute, directive, and implementing
directive. Secondly, the selection boards themselves were held
in direct violation of statute, directive, and implementing
regulation. As a result, he was not selected for promotion and
was involuntarily separated from extended active duty.
In support of the appeal,
attachments.
counsel submits a 16 page brief, with
i
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
Applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant on 10 February
1965 and entered extended active duty. He was promoted to the
grade of permanent captain effective 10 February 1972.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the
grade of major by the CY76, CY78, and CY79 Temporary Major
Selection Boards. He was also considered and not selected by the
CY79 and CY80 Permanent Major Selection Boards. As a result of
an earlier appeal to the AFBCMR, he was considered and not
selected by Special Selection Board (SSB) , which convened on
8 November 1982, by each of the above boards.
OER/OPR profile since 1970 follows:
10 MAY 70
31 OCT 70
31 OCT 71
30 SEP 72
15 JUL 73
15 JUL 74
16 MAR 75
17 MAR 75 THRU 31 OCT
76
31 OCT 77
31 JUL 78
31 JUL 79
8-4
9-4
8-3
9-3
9-4
9-4
8-3
2-2-2
1-2-2
3-3-3
Not rated for period; report
removed by order of CS
On 29 February 1980, applicant was involuntarily discharged in
accordance with AFR 36-12, paragraph 3-5, for failure to be
promoted. He served over 15 years of active duty and received
severance pay in the amount of $15,000.00.
AIR STAFF E VALUATION:
The Deputy Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAD; the
Chief , Evaluation Procedures Branch, AFMPC/DPMAEP; the Chief,
Appeals and SSB Branch, AFMPC/DPMAJA; the Chief, Officer
Separations Section, AFMPC/DPMARSl; the Chief, Retirement
Programs Section, AFMPC/DPMARRl; and the Staff Judge Advocate,
AFMPC/JA reviewed the application and recommended denial.
Copies of the evaluations are attached at Exhibits C, D, E, F, G.
and H.
2
r
r
a
3
Applicant reviewed the Air Staff evaluations and provides an 18
page response, with attachments, which is attached at Exhibit J.
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 1 5 5 2 ) , and Air Force Regulation 31-3.
Although the applicant asserts a date of discovery which would,
if correct, make the application timely, the essential facts
which gave rise to the application were known to applicant long
. before the asserted date of discovery. Knowledge of those facts
constituted the date of discovery and the beginning of the three-
year period for filing. Thus the application is untimely.
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.
3. 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 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 19 January 1995, under the provisions of AFR
31-3 :
3
Mr. Walter A. Willson, Panel Chairman
Ms. Karen Bingo, Member
Ms. Martha Maust, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
DD Form 149, dated 15 May , w/atchs.
Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Letter, AFMPC/DPMAB, dated 16 Sep 93.
Letter, AFMPC/DPMAEP, dated 4 Oct 93.
Letter, AFMPC/DPMAJA, dated 16 Dec 93.
Letter, AFMPC/DPMARSl , dated 11 Feb 94.
Letter, AFMPC/DPMARRl, dated 30 Mar 94.
Letter, AFMPC/JA, dated 12 May 94.
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Aug 94.
Applicant's response, dated 13 Dec 94, w/atchs.
Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C.
Exhibit D.
Exhibit E.
Exhibit F.
Exhibit G.
Exhibit H.
Exhibit I.
Exhibit J.
WALTER A. WILLSON
Panel Chairman
4
His record be corrected to reflect continuous active service as a a captain from the date he was separated as a result of his nonselection to the grade of major. He served 15 years and 21 days of active duty and received $15,000.00' in severance pay. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application and recommends denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAE3, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and recommends denial. However, other portions of DODD 1320.09 stated: tlSelection boards convened for different competitive categories or grades may be convened concurrently,Il and When more than one selection board is convened to recommend officers in different competitive categories or grades...
The Air Force elected to retain the controlled system of reports in officer selection folders. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and recommends denial. The provisions of law and directive were violated by the Air Force selection board procedures used when applicant was considered for promotion.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and recommends denial. Although counsel challenges the operating procedures of promotion boards including the panel concept used by the Air Force, the Air Force has used the panel concept for many years in conducting selection boards and the procedure was reviewed as late as February 1992 by HQ USAF/JAG and AFMPC/JA in...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and recommends denial. The provisions of law and directive were violated by the Air Force selection board procedures used when applicant was considered for promotion. Counsel's complete response is attached at Exhibit I.
The operation of the Air Force selection boards did not comply with Sections 616 and 617, Based on these illegal actions, he requests that his promotion nonselections be Set aside and correction of his record to reflect continuous active duty until the first day of the month following the decision on this petition. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and recommends denial. The provisions of law and directive were violated by the Air Force selection board procedures used when applicant was considered for promotion. Counsel's complete response is attached at Exhibit I.
The operation of the Air Force selection boards did no-t .comply with Sections 616 and 617. A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Selection Board Secretariat, AFMPC/DPMAB, reviewed the application regarding Defective Selection Boards and recommends denial. The provisions of law and directive were violated by the Air Force selection board procedures used when applicant was considered for promotion.
There was no board in 1990. The provisions of law and directive were violated by the Air Force selection board procedures used when applicant was considered for promotion. Counsel's complete response is attached at Exhibit I.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 88-02168A
A complete copy of the DPMAJA evaluation is at Exhibit L. The Officer Appointment/Selective Continuation Section, AFMPC/DPPPOC, reviewed the submissions and recommended denial of the applicant's request that a statement be placed in his OSR reflecting he was not eligible for the CY86 Regular Air Force (RegAF) Appointment Board. A complete copy of the DPPPOC evaluation is at Exhibit M. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...