AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

FEB  1  0  1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-03429 
COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

1.  She be allowed to join the Air  Force Reserves and finish her 
twenty years to be eligible to retire. 

2.  Her Officer Selection Brief  (OSB) for the Calendar Year 1991A 
(CY91A) Major  Board be  corrected to show she completed Squadron 
Officer School  (SOS) . 
3.  Her  Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF) for the CY91A Major 
Board be corrected to show a Definitely Promote  (DP). 

4.  She  be  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  major  by 
Special Selection Board  (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1991A  (CY91A) 
Ma] or Board. 

5.  If selected for promotion  to the grade  of major  by  SSB  for 
CY91A Major Board, she be allowed to separate from the Air Force 
either through the Voluntary  Separation Incentive  (VSI) Program 
or Special Separation Benefits  (SSB) Program. 

*_ 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:. 

Her promotion records were not updated to reflect her completion 
of SOS.  When she checked with MPC after her non-selection they 
didn’t  have  the  information  recorded  on  her  promotion  records 
although  they  felt  the  information was  given  to  the  promotion 
board;  however,  they  could  not  prove  or  provide  proof  of  this 
fact. 
She  was  suppose  to  receive  a  copy  of  her  promotion 
recommendation form  (PRF) prior to the CY91A Board, although she 
was  told  she  was  receiving  a  definitely  promote  (DP). 
Additionally,  she met  the promotion recommendation board  at the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD); however, she 

96- 03429 

was actually assigned to Defense Logistics Agency  (DLA), but they 
didn't  want  her  as  part  of  their  promotion  recommendation 
selection  board,  so  she  was  unofficially  given  to  OASD.  She 
received a promote  (P) and only received a copy of her PRF after 
she requested it.  It was sent to her after the promotion board 
had closed. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  was  considered and not  selected for promotion to  the 
grade of major by the CY91A and CY92C Major Boards.  Based on her 
second nonselection applicant separated 31 August 1993. 
Applicant's DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty, Narrative Reason for Separation, has been changed to 
read Non-Selected Permanent Promotion. 
OER/OPR profile since 1987, follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

15 Apr 87 
15 Apr 88 
15 Apr 89 
15 Apr 90 
15 Apr 91 
15 Apr 92 
15 Apr 93 

# 
# #  

1-0-1 
1-1-1 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

#  Top report at time of CY91A board. 
##  Top report at time of CY92C board. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Career  Opportunities  Division,  ARPC/DAO(DPRB), 
reviewed  the  application  and  states  that  Regular  commissioned 
officers twice non-selected for promotion are not eligible for a 
reserve appointment without first processing a waiver through HQ 
ARPC/DAO. 
This  waiver  request  should  be  processed  prior  to 
separation but  no later than one year from the original date of 
separation.  The only other option for reserve appointment would 
be  through  a direct  appointment program  as outlined  in AFI  36- 
2005.  To process the applicant for a direct appointment, first 
there  would  have  to  be  an  approved  assignment  in  a  specialty 

. 

96-03429 

identified as critical or equivalent (i.e., in the medical field, 
or  in  11XX,  12XX,  62XX,  32XX  specialties). 
The  applicant's 
specialty  prior  to  discharge  was  in  the  79XX  and  09XX  field 
(Public  Affairs  and  Recruiting  Officer). 
Therefore,  the 
applicant  is  ineligible  for  a  direct  appointment. 
The 
applicant's  discharge was appropriate.  Therefore, they recommend 
denial of applicant's request. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 

The Chief, Programs and  Procedures Branch, AFPC/DPPRP,  reviewed 
the  application and  states that applicant requests, if promoted 
to major, that she be separated under the VSI/SSB program.  As a 
Regular  Captain,  once  deferred  by  the  CY91  Major  Central 
Promotion  Selection  board,  she  was  afforded  and  eligible  for 
VSI/SSB in the FY92/93 programs.  For whatever reason, applicant 
did  not  apply,  which  resulted  in  her  second  nonselection  for 
promotion  and  involuntary  separation  from  the  Air  Force. 
Therefore, if applicant is granted an SSB and is again nonslected 
for promotion,  they do not believe  she is entitled to a VSI/SSB 
election.  However, if  she  is granted  an  SSB  and  selected  for 
promotion  to major,  they  have  no  objection  to  her  receiving  a 
VSI/SSB  separation  in  that  grade. 
Therefore,  they  recommend 
denial of applicant's request. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  the 
application and  states that  the  applicant  contends her  OSB  was 
not updated to reflect her completion of SOS.  Applicant  states 
she  checked  with  AFPC  (then AFMPC)  after  her  notification  of 
nonselection and  "they didn't  have  the  information recorded  on 
her  promotion  records  although  they  felt  the  information  was 
given  to the promotion board;  however,  they  could not prove  or 
provide proof of this fact."  In researching the contention, they 
pulled a copy of her OSB  from the microfiche and noted that SOS 
completion is, in fact, annotated on her  OSB.  They must  point 
out  that the date on the OSB  is after the original board which 
might lead one to believe  that this information could have been 
updated in between the time the board concluded and the time the 
microfiche was run.  This is not  the case.  The information on 
the OSB was  frozen in the personnel data system  (PDS) after the 
final printing of the OSB and then it was captured on microfiche 
subsequent to the board.  They feel confident the board was aware 
of  the  applicant's  SOS completion.  The  applicant contends  she 
did not receive a copy of her PRF prior to the board.  She states 
she was told she was receiving a definitely promote but found out 

3 

96- 03429 

later  she  had  earned  a  promote  recommendation. 
She  further 
contends she met  the promotion recommendation board  as assigned 
to  the  OASD  when  she  was,  instead, assigned  to  DLA, but  they 
didn't  want  her  as  part  of  their  promotion  recommendation 
selection  board,  so  she  was  unofficially  given  to  OASD. 
In 
researching  this,  they  retrieved  a  copy  of  her  PRF  from 
microfiche included with her records and noted that it was signed 
by  the  senior rater who  signed the  officer performance  reports 
(OPRs) closing 15 April 1990 and 15 April 1991 (the 15 April 1991 
OPR was the top OPR on file when her record was considered by the 
CY91A board).  These  OPRs  indicate  the  applicant  was,  indeed, 
assigned to OASD.  Without  evidence to the contrary, it appears 
the appropriate senior rater signed the report.  Therefore, they 
recommend denial of applicant's request. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit E. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that 
in  response  to  the  AFPC/DPPA  evaluation  the  Air  Force  still 
cannot prove  100% that  the  SOS information was  included in her 
records and presented to the promotion board.  The Air Force does 
not  support  reconsideration  on  this  issue,  which  admits 
uncertainty  on  the  part  of  the  Air  Force.  In  regard  to  her 
assignment, the Air Force failed to check two important documents 
-  the documents for manning  for the Air Force for that position 
at that time and the documents at DLA which shows the manning for 
that period.  Also, if they checked further they would  see that 
all of her administrative support was provided by DLA.  She was 
even required to provide support to them during Desert Storm.  If 
she were assigned to OASD would she not have received joint tour 
credit? 

In  response  to  the  AFPC/DPPRP  evaluation  she  states  that  in 
regard to VSI/SSB program, she didn't take the VSI/SSB the first 
time because she felt she would be able to resolve the issue of 
the PRF before the second board met  and not have to worry about 
separating from the Air Force. 

She gambled and lost. 

In response to the HQ ARPC/DAO  (DPRB) evaluation applicant states 
that  she  was  not  aware  of  the  fact  that  regular  commissioned 
officers twice non-selected for promotion are not eligible for a 
reserve appointment without  first processing a waiver until  she 
attempted  to  apply  to  join  the  reserves.  If  there  is  not  an 
actual need for her former career field, why then after more than 

96-03429 

Jobline  for  reserve  officers  in  the  79XX  field?  Joining  the 
reserves is  something she still would  like to do; however,  she 
would be  content just to meet  a special selection board at this 
point. 

Applicant’s complete response, with  attachments, is attached at 
Exhibit G. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was not  timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.  In 
regard  to  applicant’s  request  she  be  allowed  to  join  the  Air 
Force  Reserves  and  finish  her  twenty  years  to  be  eligible  to 
retire, we  note  she does  not  meet  the  eligibility  requirements 
for this appointment.  In regard to her  request that the CY91A 
OSB be corrected to show she completed SOS, we note that the Air 
Force  states SOS completion is, in fact, annotated on her  OSB. 
Therefore,  no  further  action  by  this  Board  is  required. 
Applicant requests her CY91A PRF be corrected to show a DP.  She 
states she was  told she was  receiving a DP but  found out  later 
she had  earned a  Promote recommendation.  She  further contends 
she met  the  promotion  recommendation board  as  assigned  to  the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD) when she was, 
instead,  assigned  to  Defense  Logistics  Agency  (DLA), but  they 
didn’t  want  her  as  part  of  their  promotion  recommendation 
selection  board,  so  she  was  unofficially  given  to  OASD.  The 
Board  is  of  the  opinion  that  without  proper  documentation  to 
substantiate applicant’s claims, her request cannot be  favorably 
considered.  In view of the above findings, and in the absence of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

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. 

5 

96-03429 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 13 January 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603: 

Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair 
Mr. Robert W. Zook,  Member 
Mr. Allen Beckett, Member 
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 25 Oct 96, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DAO  (DPRB), undated. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRP, dated 8 Apr 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 20 May 97. 
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Jul 97. 
Exhibit G.  Applicant's Response, dated 5 Aug 97, w/atchs. 

BARBARA A. WEST GATE^ 
Panel Chair 

6 

I 

D E P A R T M E N T   O F  T H E  A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  A I R   F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

I 

U.S. AIR FORCE lB 

! 1 9 4 7  -  1 9 9 7  

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ ARPC 
AFBCMR 
IN TURN 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPRP 

550 C Street West, Suite 11 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 13 

APR  0 8  1997 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of 

filitary Record 

The applicant, while serving in the regular grade of captain, was twice not selected for 
promotion to the grade of major.  As a result, she was involuntarily discharged on 3 1 Aug 93 
under the provisions of AFI 36-3207, Non-selected, Permanent Promotion. Officer was 
discharged with an honorable discharge.  She had  13 years 06 months and  17 days active service. 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting removal of the statement “Involuntary 

Discharge:  Twice non-selected for Promotion” from her DD Form 214.  She states that she uses 
this document for other things and it is embarrassing to have to explain what she did and how she 
is not a “slug” that statement makes her out to be.  She claims she was told by Air Force 
personnel, that it is not necessary to have that statement on her DD Form 214.  Applicant also 
requests that she be allowed to join the Air Force Reserves in order for her to complete 20 years 
and be eligible for retirement.  We defer that issue to HQ Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) 
for their review and comments.  Finally, the applicant requests that if she is promoted to major by 
authority of the AFBCMR,  she would desire to separate under either the Voluntary Separation 
Incentive (VSI) program or the Special Separation Benefits (SSB) program. 

Discussion. 

t 

a.  Applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to major for the second time 
by the PO4 92C Major board and was given a mandatory date of separation of 3 1 Aug 93.  The 
case has been reviewed for separation processing and there no errors or irregulars causing an 
injustice to the applicant.  However, the narrative reason for discharge is incorrect and should 
read “Non-Selected Permanent Promotion”.  Administrative relief will be taken and 
AFPCDPPRSO will prepare a corrected DD Form 214, and furnish a copy to the applicant.  It is 
unfortunate the applicant feels she is a “slug” and that others perceive her as such due to 
nonselection for promotion.  The fact of the matter is that many fine officers fail promotion 
selection, due to the vary competitive nature of the process.  She likely did not fail promotion due 
to a weak record, but rather due to her record not being as competitive as many of her peers.  She 
should be proud of her career, and not allow that pride to be diminished by her nonselection in an 
extremely competitive process. 

4 

. -  

b.  Applicant requests, if promoted to major, that she be separated under the VSUSSB 

program.  As a Regular Captain, once deferred by the CY 91 Major Central Promotion Selection 
board, she was afforded and eligible for VSUSSB in the FY 92/93 programs.  For whatever 
reason, applicant did not apply, which resulted in her second nonselection for promotion and 
involuntary separation from the Air Force.  Therefore, if applicant is granted a Special Selection 
board (SSB) and is again nonselected for promotion, we do not believe she is entitled to a 
VSUSSB election.  However, if she is granted an SSB and selected for promotion to major, we 
have no objection to her receiving a VSUSSB separation in that grade. 

Conclusion and Recommendation.  Applicant did identify an error in the DD Form 214 
and corrective action is being taken by administrative relief  Her request to be separated under 
the VSUSSB programs should be denied since she did not elect to separate under those programs 
when given the opportunity. We have referred this application to AFPCDPPP for an advisory 
concerning the Promotion Recommendation Form and other promotion issues she raises.  She has 
not filed a timely request. 

Chief, Programs and Procedures Branch 
Dir, Personnel Programs Management 

. 

I 

D E P A R T M E N T   O F   T H E  A I R   FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  A I R   F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

B 

U.S. AIR  FORCE 

20 MAY 97 

1 9 4 7  -  1 9 9 7  
I 

MEMORANDUMFOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78150-4710 

SUBJECT:  AFI 36-2603 Application- 

Reauested Action.  The applicant makes several requests.  We address only the issues 

regarding her promotion reconsideration and promotion recommendation form (PRF).  In that 
regard, the applicant requests promotion reconsideration by the CY91A (8 Jul91) major board 
(P0491A). 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends her Squadron Officer School (SOS) completion 

was not considered by the board.  She hrther contends she did not receive a copy of her PRF 
prior to the board. 

Recommendation.  Time bar.  If, however, the AFBCMR considers, then we recommend 

denial due to lack of merit. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is not timely filed.  The test to be applied is not merely whether the 
applicant discovered the error within three years, but whether through due diligence, she could or 
should have discovered the error@) (see OpJAGAF 1988/56,28 Sep 88, and the cases cited 
therein).  Clearly, the alleged error(@ upon which she relies have been discoverable since she was 
first considered for promotion in 1991. Further, DoD Directive 1320.11 states, “A special 
selection board shall not.. .consider any officer who might, by maintaining reasonably careful 
records, have discovered and taken steps to correct that error or omission on which the original 
board based its decision against promotion.”  Therefore, we see no valid reason to waive the 
statute of limitations and consider the applicant’s requests. 

b.  A similar application was not submitted under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and 
Enlisted Evaluation Reports.  We did not return the application since the applicant is no longer on 
active duty and she does not have evaluator support. 

c.  The governing directive is AFR 36-10, Officer Evaluation System, 1 Aug 88. 

d.  The applicant was considered and nonselected by the P0491A and CY92C (7 Dec 

92) major- boards.  As a result, she was involuntarily separated on 3 1 Aug 93. 

e.  The applicant contends her officer selection record OSB was not updated to reflect 
her completion of SOS.  She states she checked with AFPC (then AFMPC) after her notification 
of nonselection and “they didn’t have the information recorded on (her) promotion records 
although they felt the information was given to the promotion board; however, they could not 
prove or provide proof of this fact.”  In researching the contention, we pulled a copy of her OSB 
from the microfiche (atch 1) and noted that SOS completion is, in fact, annotated on her OSB. 
We must point out that the date on the OSB is after the original board which might lead one to 
believe that this information could have been updated in between the time the board concluded 
and the time the microfiche were run.  This is not the case.  The information on the OSBs was 
frozen in the personnel data system (PDS) after the final printing of the OSBs and then it was 
captured on microfiche subsequent to the board.  We feel confident the board was aware of the 
applicant’s SOS completion.  We do support reconsideration on this issue. 

f  The applicant contends she did not receive a copy of her PRF prior to the 

board.  She states she was told she was receiving a “Definitely Promote (DP)” but found out later 
she had earned a “Promote” recommendation.  She hrther contends she met the promotion 
recommendation board as assigned to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (OASD) 
when she was, instead, assigned to Defense Logistics Agency @LA), but “they didn’t want (her) 
as part of their promotion recommendation selection board, so (she) was unofficially given to 
OASD.”  In researching this, we retrieved a copy of her PRF from microfiche included with her 
records and noted that it was signed by the senior rater who signed the officer performance 
reports (OPRs) closing 15 Apr 90 and 15 Apr 91 (the 15 Apr 91 OPR was the top OPR on file 
when her record was considered by the P0491A board).  These OPRs indicate the applicant was, 
indeed, assigned to OASD.  Without evidence to the contrary, it appears the appropriate senior 
rater signed the report.  We do not support reconsideration on this issue. 

g.  Regarding the untimeliness of this appeal, the applicant fails to provide any 
reasonable explanation for waiting more than six years before filing this appeal.  She states she 
discovered the alleged errors while she still on active duty, but could not get the evaluator support 
required to appeal.  She further states she was “devastated and ashamed of the way (she) had to 
leave the Air Force that for the last three years (she) was not emotionally able to deal with the 
situation.”  It is apparent there is nothing in this case that was not discoverable at the time of the 
contested report.  She has provided no legitimate reason, in fact, no reason whatsoever, for 
having waited until now to file this appeal.  It is clear the applicant was not forced to endure any 
unique requirements on her  time for a period of six straight years.  Even after promotion 
nonselection, the applicant delayed filing an appeal for over three years after her separation. 

Summary. We recommend this application be time barred from consideration.  If, however, 

the AFBCMR considers, then we recommend denial due to lack of merit. 

Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

* 

*

- -

 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  RESERVE  PERSONNEL  CENTER 

\ hEhl( )RA?;DLAI FOR AFBC\ IR 

1 53 5  Command Dri1.e 
EE \\ling 3rd Floor 
.Andrews .WB IfD  2033 1-7002 

FROhI:  HQ .mPC DAW (DPIU3) 

6760 E Inington PI-"2L)OO 
Den\.er CO  80280-3200 

1.  The requested correction cannot be accomplished administratively at ths headquai-ters. 

2.  The applicant mahes several requests.  \\'e  nill addrcss on& the applicants reyuzst to 
join the .4ir Force Resewe and finish hwn@ years ot senice. 

3.  .An anaksis of the case indicates the applicant 
involuntarily discharged from active 
duty due to twice considered but  not selected for promotion to major.  Since the  time  of 
discharge. 31 August 1993. the applicant has not held a commission. 

4. Regular commissioned officers h%ice non-selected for promotion are not eligible for a 
reserve  appointment without  fmt  processing  a  waixer  through  HQ  .WCDLQO. Thts 
waiver request should be processed prior to separation but no later than one year horn the 
original date  of  separation (.GI 36-2005.  table  2.2,  item  25  and  chapter  2,  paragraph 
2.3.4.2). 

- 

5.  The o* 
other option for resewe appointment nould be through  3 direct appointment 
program as outhed in  .GI 36-2005.  To process the applicant for a  direct appointment, 
first there nould have to be an approved assignment in  a  special@ identified as critical or 
the equivalent (i.e. in  the  medical  field  or in  11XS. 1255, 62XX,  32XN  specialties). 
The  applicant's  spzcialtjr prior  to  discharge \vas  in  the  79SS and  09SS field  ( Public 
.Wain  and  Recruiting  C>fficer).  Therefor.  the  applicant  is  ineligible  for  a  direct 
appointment. 

.