ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 95-03189
Index Number: 111.00, 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
In an application dated 15 October 1995, applicant requested that the
last comment in Section VI, Rater Overall Assessment, on the Officer
Performance Reports closing 2 May 1992, 2 May 1993, and 2 May 1994 be
amended; the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the
Calendar Year 1993 Central Lieutenant Colonel Board be upgraded to
reflect a “Definitely Promote” (DP) promotion recommendation; that
his retirement be declared null and void and he be reinstated to
extended active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, and his
record be corrected to reflect continouous active duty since his
separation, to include restoration of all pay, benefits, and any
other entitlements.
On 29 April 1997, the Board considered and denied applicant’s
request. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at
Exhibit J.
Applicant alleged in letters to the Secretary of the Air Force, the
Executive Director, AFBCMR, and a member of Congress that the
examiner of record did not provide the Board with the attachments to
his rebuttal comments. Further, applicant expressed concern that his
case had been grouped with a number of cases involving promotion
issues, although he stated that his case was not a promotion case.
A review of the case file by the AFBCMR staff disclosed a discrepancy
in the listing of the Exhibits in the Record of Proceedings. In view
of this inconsistency, applicant’s case has been reopened for
reconsideration.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. After an exhaustive review of applicant’s original application
and supporting documentation, and the current submission, we again
find no basis upon which to recommend approval action on the
requested relief. Although applicant contends that we were not
provided a complete copy of the documentation he submitted, all the
documentation he submitted, to include that which he submitted with
his original application and with his rebuttal comments, was
considered. It appears that as a result of an administrative
oversight, the list of Exhibits in the original Record of Proceedings
was cited incorrectly. However, applicant’s attention is directed to
that portion of the Record of Proceedings containing his rebuttal
comments where it is clearly indicated therein that the supporting
documents were provided for review.
2. Essentially applicant argues that he was forced into early
retirement on the basis of miscounseling by his commander, Colonel O.
After again reviewing Colonel O.’s statement, we are not persuaded
that his letter supports applicant’s contention that he was so
discouraged by what Colonel O. told him that he left the Air Force.
On the contrary, it appears that Colonel O. was merely attempting to
point out to the applicant certain weaknesses in his record in an
attempt to help the applicant strengthen his record thereby enhancing
his promotion potential. The fact that applicant appears to have
misinterpreted what he was told is unfortunate; however, on the basis
of the evidence of record before us, we find no basis upon which to
reinstate him to active duty or promote him. In view of the
foregoing, and in the absence of more persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the
relief sought in this application.
3. Further, we note applicant’s concern that his case was
considered with a group of cases with similar issues. We have
considered many applications from individuals alleging that selection
boards are defective. However, if any individual has additional
requests pertaining to other issues such as Officer Performance
Reports (OPRS), Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs), etc., we also
consider these issues and make a recommendation based on the evidence
of record. This is what was done in the applicant’s case as verified
in the original Record of Proceedings.
4. Lastly, 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 DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the 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 26 May 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
Mr. John L. Robuck, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit J. ROP, dated 12 Jun 97, w/atchs as follows:
Exhibit A, DD Form 149, dated 15 Oct 95, w/atchs.
Exhibit B, Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C, Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 28 Nov 95.
Exhibit D, Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 17 Apr 96.
Exhibit E, Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 25 Apr 96.
Exhibit F, Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 24 Jul 96.
Exhibit G, Letter, AFPC/DPPRP, dated 22 Aug 96.
Exhibit H, Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Sep 96.
Exhibit I, Applicant’s 30-page response, dated
1 Dec 96, w/5 atchs; and Applicant’s Letter, dated
30 Jan 97, w/letter fr Carolyn Johnson, dated
27 Jan 97.
Exhibit K. Applicant’s 8-page Letter, dated 2 Sep 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit L. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 24 Sep 98.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-03189A
On 29 April 1997, the Board considered and denied applicant’s request. A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit J. Applicant alleged in letters to the Secretary of the Air Force, the Executive Director, AFBCMR, and a member of Congress that the examiner of record did not provide the Board with the attachments to his rebuttal comments.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00890
His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a detailed response and additional documentary evidence which are attached...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02697
A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a detailed response to the Air Force advisory opinions, as well as additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration (Exhibit I). A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit N. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant provided a detailed response to the Air Force advisory opinions, as well as additional documentary evidence for the Board’s consideration (Exhibit I). A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit N. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE...
Or, in the alternative, correction of his OSB to reflect the 4. correct duty organization, command level, and academic education; his PRF be changed to a DP recommendation; and, that he be granted a Special Selection Board (SSB). AFBCMR 97-0 1 62 1 The AFBCMR granted the applicant a SSB by the CY94A lieutenant colonel board based on the information contained on the CY94A OSB. We note that the applicant received SSB consideration by the CY94A board with the corrected assignment history and...
DPPPA notes the 30 Sep 95 OPR was the top document on file for the CY96C board and, as the senior rater states, includes a recommendation for professional military education (PME). As a matter of interest, DPPPA notes the senior rater’s letter, dated 17 Dec 96 (see AFI 36-2401 appeal), states he “did not feel it necessary to reiterate to the promotion board (his) endorsement to SSS on his (the applicant’s) PRF.” The senior rater believed the statement, “If I had one more DP...” was his best...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03386
DPPPA notes the 30 Sep 95 OPR was the top document on file for the CY96C board and, as the senior rater states, includes a recommendation for professional military education (PME). As a matter of interest, DPPPA notes the senior rater’s letter, dated 17 Dec 96 (see AFI 36-2401 appeal), states he “did not feel it necessary to reiterate to the promotion board (his) endorsement to SSS on his (the applicant’s) PRF.” The senior rater believed the statement, “If I had one more DP...” was his best...
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 applicant has not provided any senior rater or management level 3 AFBCMR 95-01732 . A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In a detailed response, counsel indicated that the recommendations for denial were based on the government's assertion that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate that the applicant received "anything but the same fair and equitable treatment in the PRF process that was provided to each 4 AFBCMR...