AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
\a 1 3 w
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98- 00832
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that he be reconsidered for promotion to the
grade of major and a justification to all damages done to him.
Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request
and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C) .
The advisory opinion was
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E.
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 opinion appear to be based on the
evidence of record and have not been adequately 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 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 Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Mr. Edward C.
Koenig, 11, and Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, considered this
application on 17 December 1998,
in accordance with the
provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-2603, and the governing
statute, 10, U.S.C. 1552.
Panel Chair
Exhibits :
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinion
D. AFBCMR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinion(s)
E. Applicant's Response
r.
3
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
U.S. AIR FORCE
AUG 2 7’ 1998
1 9 4 7 - 1 9 9 7
M E M O m D U h l FOR A F B C m
FROM: ANG/DPPU
3500 Fetchet Avenue
Andrews AFB, MD 20762-5157
m t a r y Record
The attached Application for Correction of Military Records submitted by the
applicant, a former member of the Alaska Am National Guard, is forwarded for your
review and action.
We cannot support
because the file supplied i
others had their promotion applications “discarded to the garbage can by a native
general (sic) so that his natives could be promoted instead”. If
had presented timely, convincing evidence of t h s assertion, w
supported h s request.
request for promotion to Major,
.
The applicant claims that he and 90
I
d
m
t
e
The requested correction, however, is to an alleged error which occurred in
1974-24 years ago. AFI 36-2603, Ar Force Board for Correction of m t a r y
Records, paragraph 3.5 states:
“Orhnarily, applicants must file an application withn 3 years.after the error
or injustice was discovered, or, with due diligence should have been hscovered. A n
application filed later is untimely and may be denied by the Board on that basis.
The Board may excuse untimely filing in the interest of justice. If the application is
filed late, applicants should explain why it would be in the interest of justice for the
Board to waive time limits.”
In this case, the application is said to have been filed withn 3 years of
discovery because the basis is said not to have been known until 1995. T h s
explanation is not satisfactory because “with due ddigence” the basis ought to have
been hscovered earlier. Furthermore, we have no idea how the applicant
“&scovered” this information. Finally, the applicant fails to state why
consideration would be in the interest of justice. The timeliness requirement is
critical to the instant case since it is designed to resolve problems before records
disappear and memories fade. The agency is no longer able to reasonably defend
against the applicant’s claims because the applicant has allowed too much time to
should have followed Colonel
pass before fling his complaint.
Paul Lindemuth’s advise given in-e
promotion Passover.
-
Even if the application is considered, it is insufficient to allow the requested
correction.
provides no evidence or reason to believe that “90
promotion applications (sic) had been discarded to the garbage can by a native
general (sic) so that his natives could be promoted”. He doesn’t even advise us how
or from whom he learned that such a t h n g had happened. Furthermore, although
he provides us with 2 OERs; promotions are generally based on much more
information. At a minimum, he should have provided the entire record that was
supplied to h m under his Freedom of Information Act request. But even if the 2
OERs were the only relevant documents, we note that the 1972-1973 OER appears
to be fine, but that the 1973-1974 OER suggests that l
have been suitable for promotion to Major. He is marked down in every category in
the second OER, whereas he had a perfect OER in 1972-1973. In particular,
not
y
I C o n s
or not retained as the action in Vietnam declined, it is not surprising that
-as
performance, leadershp, and judgment were rated much lower
i n g the fact that many fine officers were not promoted
-ID
passed over for promotion.
i d e r
a
Under AFT 36-2603, paragraph 4.1: “The applicant has the burden of
provihng sufficient evidence of probable material error or injustice”. T h s
w has utterly and absolutely failed to do.
Questions should be hrected to MSgt Gowdy, ANGIDPPUR, DSN 278-7500,
or Email: gowdyt@ng.af.mil.
FOR THE COMMANDER
“AF
Chef, Utilization
I
I
A I R FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97 COUNSEL: NONE 01879 HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The narrative reason f o r his separation be changed to allow eligibility to be considered for a commission in the Air National Guard (ANG); or, eligibility to enlist in the ANG. AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant’s request to change the reason for discharge was denied by the Air Force Discharge Review Board (AFDRB) on...
IN THE MATTER OF: RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS DOCKET NUMBER: 97-03473 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO I APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: Comments be added to Sections VI (Rater Overall Assessment) and VI1 (Additional Rater Overall Assessment) on t h e Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 1 January 1993, and that he be g i v e n consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1997...
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant’s request and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR void her Enlisted Performance Report (EPR) closing 23 Oct 94. In the applicant’s response dated 17 Nov 94 to the referral EPR, she states that she realizes that ‘she has a lot of reprimands in her Personal Information File (PIF) and didn’t consider herself ready for promotion.’ She also states...
A complete copy of the Air Staff evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION: In summary, applicant states that the evidence is clear there is no basis to time bar his petition. If h i s above r e q u e s t are n o t granted, he r e q u e s t s t h a t - t h e 0489A Promotion Recommendation For (PRF) be upgraded t o d e f i n i t e l y promote (DP) and he be considered f o r promotion t o t h e grade of major by Special S e l e c t i o n Board (SSB) f o r...
In support, applicant provides, ir- part, a reaccomplished E P K , his similar appeals submitted under AFI 36- 2401, and statements from the contested report s indorser and commander. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that the contested EPR should be replaced or that his RE code should be changed. Neither the applicant nor the evaluators have submitted persuasive evidence specifically demonstrating why the contested report is...
I 4 By letters dated 7 August 1997, 26 October 1997, 9 December 1997, and 16 February 1998, applicant requested reconsideration of his He provided copies of documentation submitted with his appeal. 3 AFBCMR 91-01962 JAJM recommended that the Board deny the applicant's request: (1) on the basis that it is untimely; (2) on the merits; and ( 3 ) because it does not meet the criteria for reconsideration. Applicant contends that his SF Form 88, Report of Medical Examination, dated 16 August...
"There is no provision of law which specifically requires each promotion board to personally review and score the record of each officer that is being considered by the board ..." was noted by AF/JAG in its opinion addressing the participation of selection board membership in the selection process (copy attached). I' As to the Air Force selection board procedures, applicant stated the evidence, particularly the evidence not disputed by AFMPC, clearly shows the "plain language" of statute,...
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 appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). EDDIE D. SWINT, MSgt, USAF Chief, Career Enhancement Branch Military Personnel Division DEPARTMENT OF T H E A I R F O R C E H E A D Q U A R T E R S AIR FORCE P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R R A N D O L P H AIR FORCE B A S E TEXAS MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR FROM: HQ AFPCDPPRP 550 C Street West, Suite 1 1 Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47...