AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER: 94-04904 

COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED: Yes  MAR  5 19% 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1.  The Officer Performance Reports  (OPRs) closing 12 May  1990, 
12  May  1991,  12  May  1992, and  12  May  1993  be  replaced  with 
reaccomplished reports provided. 

2.  The Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF) for the Calendar Year 
1993A  (CY93A) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be upgraded  to 
reflect an overall recommendation of  IIDefinitely Promotell  (DP) , 
the "Review Group Size" block remain IIN/A. 

3.  Replace  the  Officer  Selection Brief  (OSB) reviewed  by  the 
CY93A selection board with one that indicates his membership  in 
the Acquisition Corps (AC) . 
4.  None of the corrected/replaced documents should be  annotated 
as corrected copies. 

5.  He be directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel as 
if selected by the CY93A selection board, or, in the alternative, 
he be given Special Selection Board  (SSB) consideration for the 
CY93A and, if necessary, the CY94A selection board. 
6.  He be  credited for additional service so that he  can retire 
in the grade of lieutenant colonel with 20 years rather than as a 
major with 17 years. [This request was added in his rebuttals at 
Exhibi t P. 3 

. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

1.  The OPRs he  received  in  1990 and  1992 were  inappropriately 
written because the raters did not  follow regulation and policy 
letters.  On  the  1990,  1991,  and  1992  OPRs,  the  rater  and 
additional rater comments did not fully communicate their overall 
assessment in the area of professional military education  (PME) 
recommendations  primarily  due  to  erroneous  guidance  or  a 
misunderstanding  of  the  eligibility criteria.  Also,  his  duty 
title for the 1992 and 1993 OPRs was "Acquisition Staff Officer,Il 
a  nondescriptive  title  in  violation  of  AFR  36-10.  IIAssistant 
Chief, Contract Review/Pricing Branch" is more descriptive of the 
actual duties he was performing. 

2.  As a result of the many errors in the four OPRs, along with 
the incorrect OSB, his record was incomplete and inaccurate when 
it was used to prepare the CY93A PRF. 
3.  He was unjustly denied membership in the AC before the CY93A 
board due to faulty application of Title 10,  USC, Section 1732. 
However, based on more than a decade of acquisition experience, 
he met all the statutory requirements for corps membership before 
the CY93A board convened and the OSB for that board should have 
indicated corps membership. 

4.  The  AFR  31-11  appeal  process  is  flawed  and  utilizes  an 
improper  standard of  proof;  the Air  Force's PRF  and  promotion 
processes violate law and regulation; the score criteria for SSBs 
are  arbitrary, capricious and  not  based  on a  finding actually 
made by  the original board; and there is no way  to resolve the 
Itpromotion recommendation processll on a fair and equitable basis. 
He should be directly promoted to lieutenant colonel. 

In  support,  applicant  provides  a  22-page  brief 
attachments, including supporting statements from the 
of  the OPRs and reaccomplished reports. His complete 
is attached at Exhibit A. 

with  3 8  
evaluators 
submission 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

[Applicant  submitted  his  appeal  to  the  AFBCMR  on  15  December 
1994.  The last advisory  was obtained  in March  1996. After  being 
granted  two  extensions  to  respond  to  the  advisories,  applicant 
finally  requested  on  15  J u l y   1996  that his  case be  temporarily 
withdrawn until he was ready  to proceed  (Exhibit J) .  In a letter 
dated  4 April  1998,  he  provided  a  rebuttal  and  asked  that  his 
case be reopened and processed  (Exhibit L) . I 
Applicant  served  on  active  duty  as  an  acquisition/contracting 
officer.  He retired from the Air Force as a major on 1 June 1995 
after having been twice nonselected for promotion to lieutenant 
colonel by the CY93A  (12 Oct  93) and CY94A  (11 Oct  94) boards. 
The  contested  PRF  for  the  CY93A  promotion  board  reflected  an 
overall recommendation of llPromote,lt as did the PRF for the CY94A 
board.  The OPRs in question were reviewed by both boards.  The 
CY94A  OSB  indicated  that  the  requested  duty  title,  IIAssistant 
Chief ,  Contract Review/Pricing Branch,  became effective 13 May 
1993. 

A similar application was submitted under AFR  31-11. On 21 June 
1994, the Officer Personnel Records Review Board  (OPRRB) did not 
waive  the  three-year limitation for appealing the  1990 OPR  and 
denied the requests for correcting the 1991, 1992, and 1993 OPRs 
as well as the CY93A PRF. 

2 

94-04904 

? 

boards 

mini-promotion 

c  According to a 19 January 1996 letter from SAF/IGS, the applicant 
apparently filed an Inspector General  (IG) complaint alleging the 
former  Director  of  Logistics,  HQ  Air  Combat  Command  (ACC), 
convened 
promotion 
recommendation process  for the  CY93A  and  CY94A  boards.  He  was 
advised that  his allegation was  substantiated and  that HQ AFPC 
and  HQ  ACC  were  advised  in  August  1995  to  take  appropriate 
actions.  On  21 May  1996, HQ ACC  advised  applicant that  a new 
Senior Rater had been designated to review the HQ ACC/LG officers 
and  that, in  his  case, a  revised  PRF  for the  CY94A board  was 
warranted.  The new PRF for the CY94A board was upgraded to a DP. 
However,  the  reaccomplished  CY94A  PRF 
(See  Exhibi t  L. ) 
incorrectly reflects a group size of  rrlll rather than l1N/Al1 (See 
A F P C / J A   advisory,  referencing  a  6  February  1996  HQ  USAF/JAG 
opinion, at Exhibit H) . 

during 

the 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
1.  The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation &  Recognition Division, HQ 
AFPC/DPPP, provides, in part, the following discussion regarding 
the OPRs: 

12  May  1990  OPR:  The  rater  did,  indeed,  change  his 
comments in Section IV of the reaccomplished report, but he also 
changed the entire text  in Section VI  instead of  just adding a 
PME recommendation (which there was more than ample room to do in 
this Section). The rater does not  explain why he did this. The 
additional  rater  does  not  specifically  state  what  %taf f 
procedural errors" he is referring to or what he now knows that 
he  did  not  know when  the  OPR  was  written. Both  the  rater and 
additional rater recommend promotion reconsideration---not direct 
promotion. 

12  Mav  1991  OPR:  The  evaluators  support  promotion 

reconsideration, not direct promotion. 

12  May  1992  OPR:  The  evaluators  do  not  explain  what 
lloversightl1 resulted  in  an  alleged  erroneous  title  or  how  it 
happened. Nor  is a source document provided  to verify  the duty 
title currently on the OPR is in error. The rater states he was 
relatively  inexperienced  with  preparing  OPRs.  However,  the 
Officer Evaluation System  (OES) had been in effect nearly three 
and  one-half  years  when  this  OPR  was  written.  While  the 
evaluators are willing to rewrite the report to include I1impact1l 
statements, none of them explain what they know now that they did 
not know then. 

12  May  1993  OPR:  None  of  the  evaluators  explain  what 
Iloversightll  warrants a new duty title in this report, nor  is a 
source document provided  for verification. The author questions 
why is it necessary to reaccomplish the entire report for just a 

3 

94-04904 

3 

t  duty title change when the duty title on the report currently on 

file could have been administratively changed. 

Regarding  the  lack  of  PME  recommendations  on  the  four 
contested  reports: 
The  evaluators  indicate  it  was  their 
understanding  that  PME  recommendations  were  "veiled  promotion 
statements." Since the implementation of the OES in August  1988, 
there  has  never  been  a  prohibition  on  the  addition  of  a  PME 
recommendation  to  an  OPR.  While  it  may  be  argued  that  the 
omission  of  a  PME  recommendation  was  inadvertent  rather  than 
intentional, the  purpose  of  the  appeal  process  is  to  correct 
errors or injustices, not  recreate history or enhance promotion 
potential. A PME recommendation is optional and its absence does 
not  flaw a report. Denial is recommended. However, if  the Board 
determines relief is appropriate, the author strongly recommends 
against any correction other than adding the PME recommendation 
statements.  The  applicant  focuses  on  the  omission  of  these 
statements  but  then  submits  totally  reaccomplished  reports. 
Reviewing a sampling of records from the CY93A board, not all the 
selects had  PME  recommendations on  the  OPRs  in  their  records. 
Likewise,  some  nonselects  did  have  PME  recommendations. 
Therefore, a  recommendation  for  PME  is  not  a  prerequisite  f o r  
promotion  selection  nor  does  having  this  statement  ensure 
selection. 

The author discusses the PRF. [ T h e  a u t h o r   incorrectly a s s e r t s  
t h a t   the  group  s i z e  block  should  be  annotated  w i t h  a  r r l , r r  not  the 
rrN/Arl a s   the  a p p l i c a n t   requests.  See  HQ  AFPC/JA's  a d v i s o r y   a t  
E x h i b i t   H  and  DPPPA's  addendum  t o   their  a d d i t i o n a l   a d v i s o r y   a t  
E x h i b i t   M.]  Applicant's belief  that  the  requirement  for senior 
rater and MLEB president concurrence eliminates any opportunity 
for an officer to appeal an inaccurate or unjust PRF is not based 
on  fact.  The  author  states  that  if  applicant's  records  are 
corrected, they will  have  no apparent  corrections when  the  SSB 
convenes  because  the  "corrected copy1t annotations  are  masked. 
The  author  believes  the  application  should  be  denied  in  its 
entirety. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit C. 

2.  The  Chief,  Evaluation  Boards  Section,  HQ  AFMPC/DPMAJEB, 
evaluated  the  appeal  and  provides  a  technical  advisory. 
Applicant's  assumption  that  since  original  Management  Level 
Evaluation Board  (MLEB) documents are destroyed upon announcement 
of  central  selection  boards  there  is  no  existing  tlrelookll 
capability  is  invalid. In appeal actions requesting upgrade of 
promotion  recommendation,  the  MLEB  president  is  specifically 
tasked with determining if  the corrected record is sufficiently 
strong enough to award a DP.  A record comparison is not required 
for this member  to determine whether or not  a record  is of  "DP 

4 

94-04904 

3 

c 

quality. I'  In  fact ,  under  normal  evaluation  board  proceedings 
there  are  often  instances where  the panel  members must  make  a 
promotion  recommendation  determination  without  a  record 
comparison  (e .g. , one record is forwarded in aggregation for DP 
consideration and there is one DP allocated in this category). In 
cases such as this, the panel members' charter is to determine if 
the  promotion  candidate merits  the  DP promotion  recommendation 
only. If the applicant succeeds in replacing the four contested 
OPRs, the author recommends the applicant solicit a new PRF from 
the same senior rater who accomplished the original one and this 
PRF  be  forwarded  to  the  MLEB  president  for  review. Air  Force 
policy is very specific regarding the change of overall promotion 
recommendation to a DP and  the applicant has not  complied with 
these requirements. There is no evidence he received anything but 
fair and equitable treatment in the PRF process. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

3 .   The  Chief, Evaluation  Procedures Section, HQ  AFMPC/DPMAJEP, 
examined the case and finds no violation of regulatory provisions 
that  would  result  in  the  contested  OPRs  being  flawed.  "The 
omission of PME or the inappropriate recommendation for PME does 
warrant  amending  or  reaccomplishing an  OPR"  [sic].  There are 
duty history Reports of Individual Person (RIPS) in the case that 
reflect  the  applicant's  duty  title.  However,  these  source 
documents cannot be used to change the duty title. The applicant 
must present a source document such as an AF  Form 2096 or other 
source document  (effective on or before the close-out date of the 
OPR) used by  the applicant's military personnel  flight  (MPF) to 
certify  the  correct  duty  title. 
Raters  are  encouraged  to 
recommend ratees for PME but  it is not mandatory. Administrative 
oversights that weakens an OPR do not warrant reaccomplishing the 
report  to  strengthen  it.  The  OPRs  are  considered  an  accurate 
assessment of performance when they became a matter of record and 
the author recommends denial. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit E. 

4.  The  Chief  of  Operations,  Selection  Board  Secretariat,  HQ 
AFPC/DPPB,  disagrees with  applicant's contention that promotion 
boards violate Title 10, USC, Sections 616 and 617 and Department 
of  Defense  Directive  (DODD)  1320.12. 
Air  Force  legal 
representatives have reviewed the procedures on several occasions 
and have determined they comply with the applicable statutes and 
policy.  The directive requires individual selection boards  for 
each competitive category and permits the boards to be  convened 
concurrently. All  Air  Force  promotion  boards  comply  with  this 
directive.  The actions/responsibilities of each board president 
are in compliance with statute and policy. Upon the approval and 

5 

94-04904 

,t 

c  publishing of DODD 1320.12, all Air Force promotion boards were 
placed  on  hold  pending  a  complete  rewrite  of  AFR  36-89.  Only 
after the new AFR  was approved by  the Secretary of  Defense did 
promotion boards  resume. Like similar applications, this appeal 
contains faulty logic, incorrect statements, accusations without 
merit, directives/statute/regulations taken out of context and is 
fully unfounded. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

5.  The  Chief,  Reports  &  Queries  Team,  HQ  AFPC/DPAISl,  also 
reviewed  the  case  and  states  that  prior  to  the  CY93A  board, 
applicant met  all of the criteria to become a member of the AC, 
except that he was not projected into or encumbering a critical 
acquisition position (CAP). His record in the database shows that 
he  was  a major, had  123  months  of  acquisition experience, was 
level  I11  certified,  met  the  24/12  semester  credit  hours 
requirement, had a bachelor's degree, and was satisfactory in his 
job  performance.  The  position  he  was  assigned  to  was  a  non- 
critical  contracting  position.  As  a  result,  he  was  coded  as 
Vorps  eligible."  If  his  position was  in  fact  coded  critical, 
then he would have been coded as a "corps member.ll  Since he did 
not meet all of the requirements for the corps, his AC block on 
the  OSB  was  blank.  Since  no  error  occurred,  denial  is 
recommended. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit G. 

6.  The Staff Judge Advocate, HQ AFPC/JA, reviewed the appeal and 
provides, in part, the following discussion: 

Applicant contends that his OSB was in error because his 
membership in the AC was not posted. As part of that argument, he 
states first that the OSB information was not approved by the SAF 
as required by statute. However, the applicant's own exhibit, the 
29 April 1993 staff summary sheet at Attachment 7 to his letter, 
clearly contains the questioned authority in the "Recommendation1' 
section at paragraph 5. 

Applicant's argument that the Air Force requirements for 
AC  membership violates  statute is discussed. In short, the Air 
Force's requirements for AC membership---which, as described by 
the  AFPC/DPAISl  advisory,  applicant  failed  to  fulfill---were 
entirely proper and authorized by law. 

With respect to the PRF's group size, AF/JAG%  6 February 
1996  opinion  determined  that  statute  requires  that,  if  a 
corrected PRF is to be addressed by an SSB, it must appear as it 
would have appeared to the board that considered it. Therefore, 

6 

94-04904 

t 

c  if  a PRF's group  size was  originally  IIN/A,II  it  must  appear as 
IIN/A,II rather than 111,11 if its corrected version is placed before 
an SSB. 

As  to  applicant's  arguments  regarding  the  PRF,  his 
reliance on the  court's conclusion in Sanders v. US  is totally 
misplaced.  In Sanders, the problem was one of remedy---whether 
admittedly  erroneous  Officer  Effectiveness  Reports  (OERs) 
contributed  to  nonselection  and  the  officer's  ultimate 
separation. The court said the real error was that the BCMR acted 
as a  Ilsuper promotion board"  rather than correcting the error, 
effectively  usurping  the  function  of  a  promotion  board.  In 
applicant's  case,  one  is  not  dealing  with  a  standard  to  be 
applied in obtaining correction board relief, nor is it about the 
effect  of  an  acknowledged  [emphasis advisory's]  error  on  the 
promotion process.  On the  contrary, the issue here  is whether 
any  error  has  occurred  within  an  internal Air  Force  promotion 
recommendation procedure  (unlike Sanders, this applicant has not 
proven the existence of any error requiring correction) , wherein 
the final promotion recommendation (DP, Promote, Do Not Promote) 
cannot exist without the concurrence of the officers who authored 
and  approved  it.  The  author  believes  the  BCMR  is  not  in  the 
position to  independently determine a promotion recommendation; 
reliance  on  the  senior  rater  and  MLEB  president  per  the 
regulation is the best and only practical means to permit a PRF 
correction. 

Applicant avers that Air Force promotion selection boards 
are contrary to regulation, directives and statute.  There is no 
provision  of  law  that  specifically requires  each  member  of  a 
promotion board to personally review and score the record of each 
officer being considered by  the board. The House Armed  Services 
Committee Report  that accompanied the Defense Officer  Personnel 
Management  Act  (DOPMA) Technical  Corrections  Act  specifically 
references  panels  as  a  type  of  administrative  subdivision  of 
selection  boards.  Consequently, it  is  clear  that  at  the  time 
DOPMA was enacted, Congress was certainly aware of the existence 
of  promotion  board  panels  and  expressed no  problem  with  them. 
Furthermore, the language of the pertinent statute speaks to the 
corporate  board  and  not  to  individual  members.  In  essence,  a 
majority of the board must recommend an officer for promotion and 
each member is required to certify that the corporate board has 
considered  each  record  and  that  the  board  members,  in  their 
opinion, have recommended those officers who  Itare best qualified 
for  promotion.  The  Air  Force's  competitive  category  panels, 
which are convened concurrently as permitted by  the DODD, fully 
accomplish the stated purpose; i.e., members of each competitive 
category compete within their respective panel only against other 
officers  of  that  same  category.  Thus,  the  panels  operate  as 
separate boards  for purposes  of  the  DODD  and  fulfill  all  the 
requisite statutory and regulatory requirements. 

7 

94-04904 

c 

As  for  his  contentions  regarding  the  autonomy  of  the 
panel  operation and  board  president, the  duties prescribed  for 
board presidents by Air Force directives do require the president 
to  perform  several  critical  duties  relative  to  board  scoring. 
These duties do not, however, in any manner constrain the board 
from  recommending  for  promotion  the  best  qualified  among  the 
fully qualified officers being considered. Applicant has offered 
no proof that the president  of  this or any Air  Force selection 
board has ever acted contrary to law or regulation. 

The  Air  Force's SSB  procedure  fully  comports  with  the 
pertinent  statute s  requirement  that  an  officer I s  'Irecord be 
compared with a sampling of the record of those officers of the 
same competitive category who were recommended for promotion, and 
those  officers who  were  not  recommended  for promotion, by  the 
board  that  should  have  considered  him." The  burden  is  on  the 
applicant to prove otherwise, and he has failed to do so. 

Regarding his request for direct promotion, both Congress 
and  DOD  have  made  clear  their  intent  that  errors  ultimately 
affecting promotion should be  resolved through the use of  S S B s .  
The BCMR  is not  in the  appropriate position  to grant  a direct 
promotion.  The BCMR has not in the past  (and likely will not in 
the  future)  considered  direct  promotion  except  in  the  most 
extraordinary  circumstances where  SSB  consideration was  deemed 
totally unworkable. The applicant's case does not fall into that 
category. Finally, even  to  assume  arguendo  that  applicant  had 
established an error that an SSB could not remedy  (a notion the 
author rejects), it is quite another matter  to directly promote 
him. 

The  application  should  be  denied; applicant  has  failed  to 
present  relevant evidence of  any  error or  injust ice warranting 
relief. 
A  complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit H. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

After requesting that his case be  temporarily withdrawn in July 
1996, the applicant provided a 42-page rebuttal, with attachments 
in April 1998.  He states that AFPC deliberately denied the Board 
key  relevant  facts.  None  of  the  Air  Force  advisories  even 
acknowledged the fact that the IG investigated his senior rater 
and  as early  as August  1995  (many months  prior  to the date of 
several of  the  advisories), AFPC  was  informed  that  the  IG had 
substantiated the fact that his senior rater used  illegal mini- 
boards in the PRF process for both  the CY93A and  CY94A boards. 
Therefore,  their  arguments  should  be  dismissed  as  not  only 
inaccurate and unjust but  clearly written in bad  faith with the 
intent to deceive the Board. He points out  the  inaccuracies in 
the  AFPC/DPPP  advisory  regarding  the  PRF  group  size.  The 

8 

94-04904 

'c  preponderance  of  evidence  proves  the  four  OPRs  are  both 
inaccurate  and  unjust  as  currently  written.  Had  the  four 
contested OPRs been correct in 1993, he would have received a DP 
on the original CY93A PRF, or it would have been upgraded to a DP 
by the 'relookl  board. The evidence proves there were significant 
problems in his record of performance used for his PRFs. Not only 
did his rating chain ignore OPR requirements, it also ignored PRF 
requirements as well.  He asks that the group sizes in both PRFs 
be  changed  to  llN/A.ll The  evidence proves  his  OSB  should have 
shown AC membership for both the CY93A and CY94A boards.  Since 
he  met  all  the  criteria for membership  spelled out  in the DOD 
regulation,  and  no  Air  Force  regulation  existed  spelling  out 
additional requirements, there is yet another basis upon which he 
should  have  been  identified  as  a  member  of  the  AC  for  both 
selection boards.  He  gives  detailed  arguments  against  the  Air 
Force's defense  of  its  evaluation  and  promotion  processes.  He 
asks  for a  direct  promotion as  if  selected by  the CY93A board 
because an SSB cannot provide him a full measure of relief. 

Applicant's complete rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit L. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
The  Chief, Appeals  &  SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA,  again reviewed 
the  appeal  in  light  of  applicant  reopening  his  case  and 
presenting  additional  contentions.  The  Chief  stands  by  the 
recommendations  made  in  the  original  advisory,  asserting  the 
applicant  failed  to  provide  any  new  evidence  to  support  his 
contentions. If the AFBCMR decides to replace the contested OPRs, 
the Chief recommends they be corrected in accordance with AFI 36- 
2401  and  that  Air  Combat  Command  designate  a  senior  rater  to 
prepare a new PRF for possible upgrade of the CY93A PRF. If the 
Board  grants promotion  consideration, the  correction statements 
will  be  removed  for the  SSB. To vary  from the  confines of  Air 
Force  policy  for  the  applicant  would  be  unfair  to  others  and 
denial  is recommended. Based on the 21 May  1996 letter from HQ 
ACC/CC  [Exhibit L] , DPPPA is granting SSB for the CY94A based on 
the revised CY94A PRF. 

Pursuant to an electronic mailgram from the applicant questioning 
the  above  advisory,  HQ AFPC/DPPPA  provided  an  addendum  to 
paragraph  II e 'I  of  their advisory, indicating that the group size 
on the revised CY94A PRF  should be  corrected to reflect  '"/A, 
rather  than  "1.l1 Also,  DPPPA  believes  it  would  be  in  the 
applicant's best  interests to wait until the Board has resolved 
the issue of the contested OPRs before they provide the applicant 
SSB consideration for the CY94A board. 

A  complete copy of  the  evaluation, its attachment and  addendum 
are at Exhibit M. 

9 

94-04904 

i  The  Chief  of  Operations,  Selection  Board  Secretariat, 
HQ AFPC/DPPB,  also  re-evaluated  the  appeal  and  states  the 
applicant failed to provide new evidence and there is nothing to 
add to the original advisory. The Chief provides a copy of  the 
applicant's officer selection record  (OSR) as seen by  the CY93A 
board, and the OSB and PRF created for the CY94A board. 

A  complete  copy  of  the  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit N. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
Applicant  forwarded his rebuttal to AFPC/DPPPA, who returned it 
to  the  AFBCMR.  He  disagrees  with  DPPPA's  recommendations  and 
wants AFPC to "press forward immediately'' with the correction of 
the  [CY94A] PRF and grant him SSB in January 1999. 

The applicant provided  another  response, this  time directed  to 
the AFBCMR. He asks that he be considered immediately by SSB for 
the CY94A board with his new rrDP1l PRF reflecting the appropriate 
group size, he be retroactively promoted, and that he be credited 
with  additional service so that  he  can retire  in the  grade of 
lieutenant colonel with 2 0   years rather than as a major with 17- 
plus years.  He provides his rationale for requesting this relief 
and  discusses the 5ncompetence11 of HQ AFPC. 
Applicant's complete responses, with attachments, are at Exhibit 
P. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

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

2.  The application was timely filed. 
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  to 
warrant  partial  relief.  In  his  last  rebuttals,  the  applicant 
requested the Board  direct  correction of  the  CY94A PRF's group 
size and 15mmediate11 consideration for the CY94A board by the SSB 
scheduled  to  convene  in  January  1999.  The  Board  concluded, 
however, that it was best  to consider all raised issues in this 
Executive Session. 

4. We note the IG substantiated the applicant's allegations that 
the  former  Director  of  Logistics, HQ  ACC,  had  convened  mini- 
promotion boards during the promotion recommendation process f o r  
the  CY93A  and  CY94A  boards.  A  newly  designated  senior  rater 
determined  that  the  CY94A  PRF  warranted  upgrading  the  overall 
recommendation to a DP. The CY93A PRF was not found to be flawed, 

10 

94-04904 

and  the  applicant has provided  insufficient evidence to  refute 
this.  We  therefore deny his request  for SSB consideration for 
the CY93A board with an upgraded PRF. However, we do recommend he 
be given SSB consideration for the CY94A board with the upgraded 
PRF,  amended to reflect a group size of  IIN/A,I1 in his records. 
As  is  indicated  in  the  advisory  opinion,  AFPC  masks  the 
Ilcorrected copy" annotations on records presented to an SSB. 
5.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice with 
respect  to  the  applicant's other  requests.  In  reaching  this 
conclusion, we considered the following: 

a.  with respect to the four contested OPRs,  the evaluators1 
supporting statements did not convince us that the reports should 
be amended to include PME recommendations, and they certainly did 
not justify rewriting entire sections. Since August 1988, the OES 
has  not  prohibited  the  addition  of  PME  recommendations.  Such 
recommendations are optional and  their absence does not  flaw a 
report.  They  are  neither  prerequisites  for  nor  guarantees  of 
promotion  selection. As  for the  duty  title  issue, we  note  the 
CY94A OSB  indicates the requested title became effective 13 May 
1993,  after  the  closing  date  of  the  12  May  1993  report.  The 
applicant has not provided persuasive evidence that the requested 
title  became  effective  at  an  earlier  date  to  render  the  duty 
titles on the  12 May  1992 and 1993 OPRs  inaccurate. Therefore, 
this portion of the applicant's appeal is denied in its entirety. 
b.  Applicant's  contentions  regarding  the  omission  of  AC 
membership on the CY93A OSB are duly noted; however, we do not 
find  these  assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently 
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force on 
this  issue. We  agree  with  the  Air  Force's recommendations and 
adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that 
the applicant has suffered neither an error nor an injustice in 
this  regard.  Therefore,  this  portion  of  his  appeal  is  also 
denied. 

c.  The applicant's request for direct promotion to the grade 
of  lieutenant  colonel  was  not  favorably  considered.  In  this 
regard, the Board  observes that  officers compete  for promotion 
under the whole person concept whereby many factors are carefully 
assessed by  selection boards.  An  officer may  be  qualified for 
promotion but, in the judgment of a selection board vested with 
the discretionary  authority to make  the  selections, may  not  be 
the best qualified of those available for the limited number of 
promotion vacancies.  Therefore, absent clear-cut evidence that 
he  would  have  been  a  selectee  had  his  folder  reflected  the 
recommended change, we believe a duly constituted selection board 
applying  the  complete  promotion  criteria  is  in  the  most 
advantageous position  to  render  this  vital  determination, and 
that  its  prerogative  to  do  so  should  only  be  usurped  under 
extraordinary circumstances. 

11 

94-04904 

d.  As  we  have  recommended  the  applicant  be  given  SSB 
consideration, his most recent request to be retired in the grade 
of  lieutenant  colonel with  credit  for 20 years of  active duty 
will be held in abeyance pending the results of the SSB  for the 
CY94A board.  If  he  is not  selected for promotion, this  issue 
becomes moot. If he is selected, the Board will then consider his 
request  for  a  20-year  retirement  in  the  grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel. 

In  view  of  the  above,  and  absent  persuasive  evidence  to  the 
contrary, we  recommend the  applicant's records be  corrected  to 
the extent indicated below. 

6.  The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to 
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a 
personal  appearance, with  or  without  legal  counsel, would  not 
have  materially  added  to  that  understanding.  Therefore,  the 
request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 

a.  The Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF) considered by the 
Calendar Year 1994A (CY94A) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be 
declared void and removed from his records. 

b.  The  attached  reaccomplished PRF, reflecting a promotion 
recommendation  of  IIDefinitely  Promote  (DP) ,  be  corrected  to 
reflect a group size of "N/A,  rather than I l
It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to 
the grade of lieutenant colonel, with the amended I1DP1l CY94A PRF 
in his records, by a Special Selection Board for the CY94A board, 
and  that  the  results be  forwarded to  the  Air  Force  Board  for 
Correction of Military Records at  the earliest practicable date 
so that all necessary and appropriate actions may be completed. 

  II 

l

.

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 7 January 1999, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Thomas S.  Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member 
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member 

All  members voted  to correct the records, as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

12 

94-04904 

* 

* 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I. 
Exhibit J. 
Exhibit K. 
Exhibit L. 
Exhibit M. 
Exhibit N. 
Exhibit 0. 
Exhibit P. 

DD Form 149, dated 15 Dec 94, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, undated, w/atchs. 
Letter, HQ AFMPC/DPMAJEB, dated 3 Mar 95. 
Letter, HQ AFMPC/DPMAJEP, dated 16 Mar 95. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 12 Feb 96. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, dated 14 Feb 96. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 20 Mar 96. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Apr 96. 
Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Jul 96. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Jul 96. 
Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Apr 98, w/atchs. 
Letters, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 4 Aug &  17 Nov 98. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 3 Sep 98, w/atchs. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 23 Nov 98. 
Letters, Applicant, dated 2 &  14 Dec 98, w/atchs. 

THOMAS S .   MARKIEWICZ 
Panel Chair 

13 

94-04904 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

I 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 
AFBCMR 94-04904 

MAR 

5  1999 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 
of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 116), it is directed that: 

records of the Department of the Air Force relating t 

e corrected to show that: 

a.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PW) considered by the Calendar Year 
1994A (CY94A) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be, and hereby is, declared void and 
removed fiom his records. 

b.  The attached reaccomplished PRF, reflecting a promotion recowendation of 
“Definitely Promote (DP),” be corrected to reflect a group size of “/A,”  rather than “1 .” 

It is M e r  directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, 
with the amended “DP” CY94A PRF in his records, by a Special Selection Board for the CY94A 
board, and that the results be forwarded to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military 
Records at the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate actions may be 
completed. 

Attachment: 
Reaccomplished CY94A PRF 

Air Force Review BGards Agency