ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

AUG 2 5 1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02915 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

RESUME  OF CASE: 
In  an  application,  dated  29  September  1997,  the  applicant 
requested  that  he  be  promoted  to  the  grade  of  major  and 
reinstated to active duty. 

On 5 March 1998, the Board considered the applicant's  requests in 
Executive Session and denied his requests (Exhibit E). 
On  13  January  1998,  the  applicant  responded  to  the  advisory 
opinions; however, a copy of his response was not provided to the 
Board for consideration (Exhibit F). 

Since the applicant responded to the advisory opinions within the 
prescribed  time  limit  for  doing  so, and  his  response  was  not 
considered by  the  Board, his  application has been  reopened and 
forwarded to the Board for consideration. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After  thoroughly 
reviewing  the  evidence  of  record  and  noting  the  applicant s 
response  to  the  advisory  opinions, we  are  still not  persuaded 
that  he  has  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.  The 
applicant  contends  the  senior  rater  and  major  command  were 
"gaming"  the  Officer  Evaluation  System  (OES) ; however, he  has 
failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support this 
contention.  We are not persuaded  that  it was  inappropriate for 
the  applicant's  chain  of  command  to  discuss  his  record  of 
performance  and  promotion  potential  with  the  senior  rater. 
Furthermore, we  find no evidence that  the  senior rater made  an 
inappropriate decision  regarding the  PRF prepared  f o r   the  CY94 
board,  or  that  there  was  any  inappropriate  action  by  the 
Management  Level  Review  Board  (MLRB).  While  the  applicant 
contends that he  did not  fit his senior rater's mold,  based  on 
the  comments  on  the  PRF,  it  is  apparent  the  senior  rater 
supported his record for promotion and command advancement.  The 
applicant  also  contends that  unjust  job  assignments  at  Keesler 

AFB,  effected  his  competitiveness  for  promotion;  however,  the 
OPRs  the  applicant  received while  assigned  to  Keesler AFB  all 
reflect strong and enthusiastic comments regarding performance as 
well  as  specific  recommendation  for  Professional  Military 
Education  (PME)  and  command. 
Had  the  assignment  had  a 
detrimental  effect  on  the  applicant's  promotion  potential,  we 
believe  it would  appear in  the  comments  contained  in the  OPRs 
rendered during the assignment.  In the absence of evidence that 
the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice, we 
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought 
in this application. 

THE BOARD  DETERMINES THAT: 
The applicant be notified that the additional 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 2 7   May 1998, under the provisions of A F I   3 6 -  
2 6 0 3 :  

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair 
Mr. Terry A.  Yonkers, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit E.  Record of Proceedings, dated 2 0   Mar 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit J.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Jan 98. 

CHARLENE M. BRADLEY 
Panel Chair 

. -  

2 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NO: 97-02915 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

HAR  2 0 1998 

Applicant requests that he be promoted to the grade of major and 
.reinstated to active duty.  Applicant's submission is at Exhibit 
A. 

The appropriate  Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request 
and  provided  advisory  opinions  to  the  Board  recommending  the 
application be  denied  (Exhibit C).  The advisory opinions were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response  (Exhibit D). 
AS of this date, no response has been received by this office. 
After  careful.  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the 
available  evidence of  record, we  find  insufficient evidence of 
error or injustice to warrant  corrective action.  The facts and 
opinions stated in the  advisory opinions appear to be  based  on 
the evidence of  record and have not been rebutted by applicant. 
Absent persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which 
entitled,  appropriate  regulations  were  not  followed,  or 
appropriate  standards  were  not  applied,  we  find  no  basis  to 
disturb the existing record. 

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 

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 staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision. 
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and 
will only be  reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 
Members  of  the  Board  Ms.  Charlene  M.  Bradley,  Mr.  Terry  A. 
Yonkers, and Mr. Michael P. Higgins, considered this application 
on 5 March 1998, in accordance with the provisions of Air Force 
Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 ,   and the governing statute, 10, U . S . C .   1552. 

CKARLENE M. BRADLEY 
Panel Chair 

Exhibits: 

A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinions 
D.  AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 

DEPARTMENT OF  THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BASE TEXAS 

- 

9 Dec 97 

MEMORANDUMFORAFBCMR 
FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPRR 

550 C Street West, Suite 11 
Randolph AFB TX 78150-4713 

SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records 

w t e d  Action.  Applicant is requesting promotion to major and return to 

active duty. 

-. 

Applicant wntds that his nonselection fbr promotion to 
major was due to a combination of factors; "gaming" of the Of€icer Evaluation System by 
the senior rater and major corninand, injustice in job assignments, and not ''fitting BG 
Rankin's  mold." 

Discussion. 

a.  Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to major 
below-the-promotion zone @PZ) in CY92 and CY93, in-the-promotion zone QPZ) in 
CY94, and above-the-promotion zone (APZ) in CY95. 

b. On 15 Aug 95, applicant submitted a voluntary retirement application 
requestin8 to be retired effective 1 Nov 95, after serving 21 years 1 month and 17 days 
active seMce.  His application was approved by special order AC-016439 dated 2 Sep 95. 

c.  Recommendation.  None.  However, if the decision is to grant the relief 
' sought, the record should be corrected to show applicant was promoted to major and 
remained on active duty.  The retirement orders dated 2 Sep 95 (Special Order No. AC- 
016439) will need to be rescinded. 

Retirements Branch 

U-orate 

ofpers hogram Management 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  PERSONNELCENTER 

RANDOLPH  A I R   FORCE  B A S E  T E X A S  

25 Nov 97 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPO 

550 C Street West Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX 781504710 

SUBJECT: 

rd 

Requested Action.  Applicant requests direct promotion to major and return to active 

duty. 

Basis for Request.  Applicant contends that his nonselection for promotion to major was 
due to a combination of factors: ”gaming” of the Officer Evaluation System by the senior rater 
and major command, injustice in job assignments, and not ‘%fitting BG Rankin’s mold.” 

Discussion, 
a.  Application is timely.  Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to 
major below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) in CY92 and CY93, in-the-promotion zone OPZ) in 
CY94, and above-the-promotion zone (APZ) in CY95. Applicant retired in September 1995 due 
to being retirement eligible as a result of twice nonselection for promotion to major. 

b.  Applicant claims one of the reasons for his nonselection to major was due to the 

‘‘gaming’’  of the Officer Evaluation System by the senior rater and major command.  From the 
applicant’s account of the m h o  regarding the senior rater’s decision making process, no error 
or injustice is evident.  It appears the applicant’s command chain appropriately discussed the 
applicant’s record and potential to serve in a higher grade with the senior rater.  There is no 
indication the senior rater made an inappropriate decision regarding the rendering of Promotion 
Recommendation Forms. There is no evidence of inappropriate action by the HQ AETC 
Management Level Review Board. 

c.  Applicant claims another reason for his nonselection to major was due to an injustice in 

job assignments while stationed a- 
aff&  of his assignments in relation to promotion.  The affect of assignments in relation to 
promotion consideration can be validated by the comments a supervisor makes on an officer’s 
performance.  An indication that an assignment has been detrimental to an officer’s potential to 
serve in the next higher grade is typically validated by documented weak performance.  The 

This advisory will only comment on the possible 

2 

applicant received three officer p e ~ o m c e  reports (OPR) while stationed at- 
all reflect 
strong and enthusiastic comments regarding performance as well as specZc recommendations for 
professional military education and command. In a subjective comparison based on the 
benchmark records fiom the CY94 line major selection board, these OPRS were in line with the 
average records of his peer group.  Comments on these OPRs indicate his supervisors consistently 
supported his performance. 

d.  Lastly, applicant claims another reason for his nonselection to major was due to his 

“not fitting BG Rankin’s mold.”  MI 36-2501, para 2.1, states that promotion is not a reward for 
past service but an advancement to a higher grade based on past performance and fbture potential. 
While the applicant may believe he received unfair treatment due to not fitting the perceptions of 
his senior rater, the Performance Recommendation Form PRF) rendered for the CY94 major 
selection board appears appropriate in both narrative and overall recommendation and comments 
were congxuent with%he applicant’s record of performance.  The senior rater’s comments 
regardw a recommendation for promotion and command on the last line of block N, indicate the 
Senior rater supports this record for promotion b d  advancement for command. Ifthe senior rater 
believes an officer’s record does not contain the potential for advancement to the next higher 
grade, the comments on the PRF narrative would typidy not contain a recommendation for 
promotion or for command. Further, the selection rate for PRFs with an overall “Promote” 
recommendation for the CY94 major line-pf the Air Force selection board was 40.6 percent. 
There is no indication the appficant’s record did not receive firir and equitable consideration for 
promotion. 

Recommendation:  Disapprove applicant’s request for promotion to major and subsequent 
return to active duty.  While the applicant may believe an injustice occurred, he does not provide 
any evidence to substantiate the possibility of impropriety, error, or injustice. The applicant’s 
discussion of events in the Officer Evaluation System in rendering PRFs for his promotion 
consideration by both the 
e appropriate to the officer’s career specialty and logical 
assignments while stationed a 
to the officer’s progression o 
ties.  The applicant’s performance in these assignments 
can be characterized as solid.  Lastly, the applicant’s perception of his senior rater’s expectations 
are not consistent with the PRF narrative or recommendt$ion. 

boards appear appropriate.  The applicant s 

L-:  We can offer no suggestions or alternatives should the Board elect to grant 

relief over our objections. 

KATHR.*  G. STATEN, Lt Cot USAF 
Chief, Officer Promotion and Appointment Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt