ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 93-02848
INDEX CODES: 111.01, 131.00
COUNSEL:
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) for the periods closing 16
Jul 83 and 16 Jul 85 be declared void and removed from her records.
She be given promotion consideration to the grade of lieutenant
colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1990
(CY90) Lieutenant Colonel Board and all subsequent selection boards.
By amendment, she be retroactively promoted to the grade of lieutenant
colonel as of 1989 and awarded back pay and allowances and credit for
time in grade pay, promotion, and retirement purposes.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF THE CASE:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is a former Regular Air Force officer who retired
for length of service, effective 1 Feb 98, in the grade of major. She
was credited with 20 years and 23 days of active duty service.
On 26 Jul 94, the Board considered and rejected as untimely a similar
appeal by the applicant (see AFBCMR 93-02848, with Exhibits A through
F).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She has provided new evidence which supports her contention that the
contested OERs were flawed and unjust. The current evaluation system
would have protected her against the injustices of these OERs. She,
unfortunately, was the victim of an outdated system. For these
reasons alone, the OERs should be removed from her records.
She is occasionally offended by the “race card” thrown about to point
out injustices in the Air Force. Unfortunately, at this time, it is
hard to comprehend why, given her outstanding performance, there was
any reason other than racially motivated discrimination for the
downgrade.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided statements from the
rater and additional rater of the OER closing 16 Jul 85, the
additional rater of the OER closing 16 Jul 83 (also the additional
rater of the OER closing 16 Jul 85), and other documents associated
with the matter under review.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit G.
Counsel further requested that, given the egregious nature of the
wrong done, the applicant be promoted to the grade of lieutenant
colonel as of 1989 and awarded back pay and allowances and credit for
time in grade for pay, promotion and retirements purposes. According
to counsel, this is a case where the Board can void an insidious
injustice (Exhibit H).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient
evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the applicant’s
request that her OERs closing 16 Jul 83 and 16 Jul 85 be removed from
her records, and she be given SSB consideration. Accordingly, her
appeal was rejected as untimely. The applicant now requests
reconsideration of her appeal. In addition to the aforementioned
requests, she is also requesting that she be retroactively promoted to
the grade of lieutenant colonel. The applicant’s most recent
submissions has been reviewed and a majority of the Board finds them
insufficient to warrant any corrective action. While the Board
majority noted the statements provided by members of her rating chain,
the Board majority was not persuaded that the contested reports were
not accurate depictions of her performance at the time they were
rendered. In the Board majority’s view, the statements from the
evaluators represent their retrospective judgments, which are
insufficient bases to find the reports were inaccurate when originally
prepared. Therefore, in view of the above, and in the absence of
sufficient evidence to the contrary, a majority of the Board finds no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
appeal.
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 issues involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:
A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence of error or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 5 Jan 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
Mrs. Margaret A. Zook, Member
By a majority vote, the Board voted to deny the requests. Mr. Wheeler
voted to grant the applicant’s request that her OER closing 16 Jul 93
be removed from her records but did not desire to submit a minority
report. The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit G. Letter, applicant, dated 21 Oct 96, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, counsel, dated 7 Jul 97, w/atchs.
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1993-02848A
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 93-02848 INDEX CODES: 111.01, 131.00 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) for the periods closing 16 Jul 83 and 16 Jul 85 be declared void and removed from her records. In addition to the aforementioned requests, she is also requesting that she be...
Air Force Regulation 36-89, Oct 77, stated eligibility criteria for promotion to captain as two years time in grade as a first lieutenant. A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and noted that the applicant was selected for promotion by the CY97A (3 Feb 97) lieutenant colonel selection board. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or...
A copy of the Record of Proceedings, with attachments, dated 9 December 1994, is attached at Exhibit F. Applicant has submitted an application, dated 23 September 1997, requesting reconsideration of his earlier request to delete the additional rater's comments from the OERs, for the periods closing 15 June 1987 and 15 June 1988; and, that he receive consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for the CY90A Medical/Dental Lieutenant Colonel Board. In support of his...
As a result of decisions by the Officer Personnel Records Review Board (OPRRB) to remove the applicant's OPRs closing 4 Feb 90 and 3 Oct 90, and the Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) to remove his OPRs closing 1 Jul 92 and 7 Jun 93 and replace his P0695A Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), on 31 Jul 95, he was considered by an SSB for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY95A Central Colonel Chaplain Board, which convened on 15 Mar 95. It is not within their discretion to...
In an addendum dated 16 Aug 01, the applicant further requests that his record be considered at a Special Selection Board (SSB) for consideration to attend Intermediate Service School in residence; and if his record is selected for an SSB that he be allowed to forward a letter (enclosed) to the Board President (Exhibit G). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFPC/DPAP states that promotion boards do not select officers to attend ISS...
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement, a statement from the rater explaining how he was improperly influenced to rate the applicant lower than he deserved, and advising that the lower ratings were based on factors other than duty performance. The applicant appealed the contested report under the provisions of AFR 31-11 and the appeal was considered and denied by the Officer Personnel Records Review Board (OPRRB). It is further directed that his corrected report...
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of the contested report and supporting statements from the evaluators. DPPPA noted that the letters of support from the rating chain on the contested OER are dated some 15 years after the report became a matter of record. He stated that the statement from his rater is not simply a letter of support, but evidence for appeal - it states the situation, why the OER was marked incorrectly, and his (the rater’s) recommendation for its resolution.
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C. On 12 May 92, the Board considered and denied an application pertaining to the applicant, requesting that she be returned to active duty and promoted to the grade of major. On 15 May 95, the AFBCMR directed that her record be corrected, that she be returned to active duty, that she be promoted to major with a date of rank of 1 Sep 88, and that she not be considered nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel until...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03901
In a letter dated 18 Jan 06 (Exhibit C), HQ AFPC/DPAMF2 requested the applicant explain why she felt she should have been awarded the grade of captain when she entered active duty. The time between her commissioning as a lLT in the Air Force Reserve on 2 Nov 78 and when she entered active duty on 10 Jan 79 is not active service nor creditable as active service for retirement. Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Jan 06, w/atchs.
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: On 5 October 1998, she received a copy of her selection record and discovered that her most current OPR for the period 14 March 1997 through 13 March 1998, was missing from the record and that her OPRs for the periods 14 March 1995 through 13 March 1996 and 14 March 1996 through 13 March 1997 did not accurately reflect the duties she performed. Applicant also submits a statement from the rater on the...