ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RE 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-02735 

, 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

RESUME OF CASE: 

4 

In an  application dated  11  September  1996,  applicant  requested 
that  he  be  granted Special Selection Board  (SSB) consideration 
for the Calendar Year 1996A Central Major Board with the Officer 
Performance Report  (OPR) closing 13 February 1996 included in his 
Officer Selection Record  (OSR) . 
On  25 March  1997,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  applicant's 
request.  The Board was not persuaded that the processing of the 
OPR was expedited to meet the selection board.  They noted that 
the OPR shell is generated at least 30 days before the close-out 
date  and  that  the  report was  not  required to be  on  file until 
13 April 1996, 60 days after the close-out date.  A complete copy 
of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit F, 
Applicant submitted additional information on 23 June 1997 to the 
Secretary of the Air  Force and requested reconsideration of his 
application. 
The  Board  staff  reviewed  the  documentation  and 
determined  it  did  not  meet  the  criteria  for  reconsideration, 
Applicant was so  notified on 9 July 1997 (Exhibit G). 
Applicant has submitted additional information and requests that, 
on  the  basis  of  his  promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by  the 
Calendar Year  1997  (CY97) Board,  his  date  of  rank  to  major  be 
adjusted to a date consistent with selection by the Calendar Year 
1996  (CY96) Central Major  Board  (Exhibit H) .  His  request  for 
review was approved and his case has been reopened, 

AIR FORCE EVALUAT I ON : 
The Chief, Officer Promotion Management, AFPC/DPPPO, reviewed the 
request and recommends denial.  They state that there are three 
significant differences in applicant's OSR between his CY96 and 
CY97  considerations.  The  first  significant difference  is  that 
two  additional  OPRs  were  included  for  the  CY97  consideration. 
The  second  is  that  a  completely  different  Promotion 
Recommendation Form  (PRF) was rendered and presented to the CY97 
board.  The  third and most  important significant difference is 
the board membership.  A completely different board reviewed the 
applicant's  OSR  for each board.  The  different perspectives of 

t 

AFBCMR 96-02735 

each  board  would  significantly  influence  the  applicant's 
consideration and the outcome of the board's  actions.  Applicant 
cannot be  given a  date  of  rank  (DOR) commensurate with  a  year 
group  for  which  he  was  found  nonselected. 
Since  applicant 
competed with a separate year group in CY97 and was subsequently 
selected, he can only be given a DOR commensurate with the year 
group he competed for promotion.  They recommend the Board uphold 
their previous decision to deny applicant's  request.  Selection 
by  a  subsequent  board  has  no  bearing  on  matters  or  results 
presented to a previous board. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit I. 

The Chief, Officer Promotion and Appointment Branch, AFPC/DPPPO, 
reviewed the request and provided an amended recommendation.  In 
addition to their initial evaluation, they state that there are 
two  other  significant  factors  which  must  be  considered: 
a 
promotion  opportunity  change  and  the  overall  recommendation 
contained  on  the  CY96  and  CY97  PRFs. 
First,  the  promotion 
opportunity  from  CY96  and  CY97  increased  from  80%  to  998,  the 
first such opportunity since the early 1990s.  This accounted for 
approximately  275  additional  promotions  from  CY96  to  CY97. 
Secondly,  and  probably  the  most  significant  factor  was  a 
different promotion rating on the PRFs from CY96 and CY97.  In 
CY96,  applicant's  overall  recommendation  on  the  PRF  was  a 
Vromote. If  For officers with  that  recommendation in CY96,  the 
select  rate  in-the-promotion  zone  (IPZ) was  42.2%. 
In  CY97, 
applicant received a "Definitely Promote" PPF; for officers with 
that  rating  above-the-promotion zone  (APZ), the  selection  rate 
was 98.8%  (Exhibit J) . 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Counsel  reviewed  the  Air  Force  evaluations  and  provides  his 
response which is attached at Exhibit L. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice. 
Essentially, counsel argues that since applicant was selected for 
promotion above-the-promotion zone  (APZ) to  the grade of major, 
his  date  of  rank  (DOR)  should  be  adjusted  consistent  with 
selection by  an  earlier board.  Counsel's  contention  that  the 
Officer Performance Report  (OPR) closing 13 February 1996 was not 
in  applicant's  record  when  he  was  initially  considered  for 
promotion  but  was  in  the  selection  record  during  the  second 
promotion consideration is duly noted.  However, the  OPR  issue 
was decided in our earlier finding and we do not find counsel's 
argument persuasive.  As the Air Force noted, there were several 
other  factors  present  during  the  applicant's  second  promotion 
consideration  which  significantly  enhanced  his  promotability. 
Therefore, while  counsel's numerous contentions are duly noted, 

2 

AFBCMR 96-02735 

we  do  not  find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves, 
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the 
Air  Force.  Therefore, we  agree with  the recommendation of  the 
Air Force and adopt the rational 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 these requests. 
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: 

I 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 30  October 1998,  under the provisions of AFI 
36- 2603: 

Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Panel Chair 
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Member 
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G . 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I . 
Exhibit J. 
Exhibit K. 
Exhibit L. 
Exhibit M. 
Exhibit N . 
Exhibit 0 . 
Exhibit P . 
Exhibit Q . 

ROP, dated 2 1  Apr 97,  w/atchs. 
AFBCMR letter, dated 9  Jul 97,  w/atchs. 
Counsel's letter, dated 17  Apr 98,  w/atchs. 
Letter, AFBCMR, 14 May 98. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 28  Jul 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17  Aug 98. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 20 Aug 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 1  Aug 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 26  Aug 98. 
Applicant's letter, dated 27  Aug 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 1  Aug 98. 
Counsel's responses, dated 5 and 6 Oct 98. 

ROBERT D. STUART 
Panel Chair 

3