SECOND ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FORde the CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-04946
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
RESUME OF CASE:
On 16 November 1993, the Board considered and granted the applicant’s
request that the Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered
for the period 14 May 1991 through 4 December 1991, be removed from his
records. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at
Exhibit A.
On 15 August 1995, the Board considered and granted the applicant’s
requests that he be awarded an end-of-tour decoration for the period 22 May
1988 to 2 January 1992, and that his records, to include the Joint Service
Achievement Medal (JSAM), be considered for promotion to the grade of major
by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1994A Central
Major Board. A copy of the Addendum to Record of Proceedings is attached
at Exhibit B.
On 25 March 1996, the applicant was considered and nonselected for
promotion to the grade of major by an SSB for the CY94A major board.
In a letter, dated 6 July 1997, the applicant contends the Board provided
him incomplete relief; the initial corrections to his records left them
tainted; and the central selection board and SSBs that considered him for
promotion were in violation of statute and directive. The applicant
requests the following:
a. His nonselections for promotion to the grade of major be set
aside.
b. The Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, AF Form 77, rendered for the
period 14 May 1991 through 4 December 1991, be removed from his records.
c. The start date of the OPR, closing 13 May 1991, be changed to
4 December 1991.
d. The Letter of Evaluation (LOE) he received for duties performed
during OPERATION PROVIDE COMFORT be filed in his records.
e. The overall recommendation on the Promotion Recommendation Form
(PRF) prepared for the CY94 major board be upgraded to “Definitely Promote
(DP).”
f. He be promoted to the grade of major as if selected by the CY94
major board.
g. He be reinstated to active duty, with retroactive pay and
allowances.
The applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit C.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Record, USAF Officer Evaluation Boards, AFPC/DPPPEB; the Chief of
Operations, Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB; the Chief, Appeals and
SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA; and the Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, have
reviewed the applicant’s requests and recommended denial. These offices
have thoroughly reviewed the applicant’s numerous contentions regarding the
contested AF Form 77, the contested PRF, and the statutory compliance of
central selection boards and SSBs, and found them to be without merit.
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations are attached at Exhibits D
through G.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and states that the Board
has an abiding moral sanction to determine, insofar as possible, the true
nature of an alleged injustice and to take steps to grant thorough and
fitting relief. He believes the evidence proves that he has not been
granted such relief.
The applicant’s complete response is attached at Exhibit I.
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 contentions, we are not
persuaded the applicant should be provided the requested relief. The
applicant contends that since the OPR rendered for the period 14 May 1991
through 4 December 1991, used by his senior rater and the Management Level
Evaluation Board (MLEB) was in error, and has now been voided, the PRF
process was tainted and denied him fair and equitable consideration for a
“Definitely Promote” recommendation on his PRF for the CY94 board.
However, applicant has failed to provide statements from the senior rater
and MLEB president, as he has been advised to do. Applicant's numerous
contentions concerning the statutory compliance of selection boards and
SSBs are duly noted. However, we do not find these uncorroborated
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the appropriate offices of the Air Force. Therefore,
we agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rational
expressed as the basis for their conclusion that applicant failed to
sustain his burden of establishing the existence of either an error or an
injustice warranting favorable action of this portion of his requests.
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 22 April 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Member
Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. Record of Proceedings, dated 29 Nov 93, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
dated 15 Aug 95, w/atchs.
Exhibit C. Letter, Applicant, dated 6 Jul 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 12 Jan 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 22 Jul 98.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 12 Sep 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 14 Oct 98.
Exhibit H. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 26 Oct 98.
Exhibit I. Letter, Applicant, undated.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1994-04946B
SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FORde the CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-04946 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO RESUME OF CASE: On 16 November 1993, the Board considered and granted the applicant’s request that the Company Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), rendered for the period 14 May 1991 through 4 December 1991, be removed from his records. Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations are attached at Exhibits D through...
According to DPPPEB, there was no evidence presented to support the allegations of "illegal" information being considered in the PRF process. Also, there was no official evidence presented to support allegations of '\special" promote recommendations being used to identify officers who should be selected for promotion by the Central Selection Board. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated that the evidence proves that his PRF was based on an...
In the applicant's response to the Air Force evaluations, he requests that the AFBCMR direct his record be corrected to 'reflect selection for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY94 promotion board. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a response, with attachments, which is attached at Exhibit I. However, after a thorough review of the evidence of...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-03600
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a detailed personal statement and other documents associated with the matter under review, including top promote materials, board member observations, and documentary evidence pertaining to illegal selection boards. Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence are at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board's request, the Evaluation...
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a detailed personal statement and other documents associated with the matter under review, including top promote materials, board member observations, and documentary evidence pertaining to illegal selection boards. Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence are at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board's request, the Evaluation...
The revised Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY96C Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board (P0596C), with a "Definitely Promote" recommendation, be accepted for file. DPPPEB stated that the applicant had a PRF for the CY94 Lieutenant Colonel Board upgraded to a 'DP" based upon the addition of new information to his record (OPR content change, duty title change and Air Force Commendation Medal updated). Based on the assessments provided by HQ AFPC/DPAISl and HQ AFPC/DPPPEB and...
_________________________________________________________________ The applicant has submitted a letter, dated 15 October 1997, requesting that she receive a direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel as if selected by the Calendar Year 1994 (CY94) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Applicant’s numerous contentions concerning the statutory compliance of the central selection boards, illegal Officer Performance Report (OPR) restrictions, a tainted Promotion Recommendation...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-02111A
_________________________________________________________________ The applicant has submitted a letter, dated 15 October 1997, requesting that she receive a direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel as if selected by the Calendar Year 1994 (CY94) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Applicant’s numerous contentions concerning the statutory compliance of the central selection boards, illegal Officer Performance Report (OPR) restrictions, a tainted Promotion Recommendation...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00348
As for the merits of these claims, in JA’s opinion, the Air Force’s SSB procedure fully comports with the 10 USC 628(a)(2) requirement that an officer’s “record be compared with a sampling of the records 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. AFPC has provided...
As for the merits of these claims, in JA’s opinion, the Air Force’s SSB procedure fully comports with the 10 USC 628(a)(2) requirement that an officer’s “record be compared with a sampling of the records 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. AFPC has provided...