ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-01210
INDEX CODE: 110.03, 131
COUNSEL: STEWART J. ALEXANDER
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS:
Reinstatement to active duty and retroactive promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
In an application, dated 14 Apr 97, the applicant requested
reinstatement to active duty and retroactive promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel. On 3 Mar 98, the Board considered and denied his
requests (see Exhibit I).
On 7 Apr 99, counsel for the applicant provided additional
documentation and requested reconsideration of applicant’s case (see
Exhibit J).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. We have reviewed the
entire application and the additional documentation submitted.
However, we are unpersuaded that a revision of the earlier
determination in this case is warranted. In coming to this
conclusion, we again reviewed the rationale provided by the Air Force
and noted the prior statements provided by the applicant. However,
after reviewing all the documentation and supporting statements, in
our view, the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has
suffered either an error or an injustice. We note that on 30 Oct 97,
the applicant’s senior rater stated that the PRF he rendered on the
applicant was fair and just and that it capsulated his intent to have
the applicant promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel. In view of
this statement and the senior rater’s prior statement of 31 Mar 93
wherein he stated that he felt confident that the applicant was
provided every opportunity to fairly compete in the promotion process,
in our estimation, the selection boards in question had sufficient
records pertaining to the applicant’s performance and promotion
potential in order to make reasonable determinations concerning his
promotability and we find no violation of any regulatory provisions
regarding promotion processing errors. Therefore, we again find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
2. 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 counsel, would not have materially added
to that understanding. 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 12 July 1999, under the provisions of Air Force
Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Sophia A. Clark, Member
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit I. ROP, dated 27 Mar 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit J. Letter fr counsel, dated 7 Apr 99, w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-01210A
On 3 Mar 98, the Board considered and denied his requests (see Exhibit I). On 7 Apr 99, counsel for the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of applicant’s case (see Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
On , the Board considered and denied his requests (see Exhibit I). On , counsel for the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of applicant’s case (see Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
He had less than two years eligibility to complete ACSC prior to consideration for LTC IPZ in Apr 99, whereas his peers had at least four and one-half years. He did complete ACSC in Nov 99 in time for the CY99B board’s consideration. Although the applicant did not raise this issue, we believe his not having sufficient time to build a performance record as a major before being considered IPZ for LTC may have contributed to his nonselection.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01151
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS INDEX CODE 111.01 111.03 111.05 131.01 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01151 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period closing 24 Oct 98 be declared void, the Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be...
In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, copies of his PRF for the P0696B Board, a Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), a statement from his rater, his Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 29 February 1996, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions (Exhibit A). If the Board finds that the documentation was unjust and corrective action is appropriate, then for the reasons indicated above, DPAIP2 recommended one of...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01399 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Letter of Evaluation (LOE), dated 3 Feb 96, become a permanent addendum to his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 30 Nov 96; his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), dated 19 May 98, be corrected to reflect his Date of Separation as Indefinite and any reference to a retirement date...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1994-02626A
In an application, dated 28 Apr 98, the applicant provided additional information and requested the above corrections to his record (Exhibit F). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that the PRF is the responsibility of the senior rater and unless proven otherwise, they consider it to be an accurate reflection of the officer’s record of performance. ...
In an application, dated 28 Apr 98, the applicant provided additional information and requested the above corrections to his record (Exhibit F). A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit G. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that the PRF is the responsibility of the senior rater and unless proven otherwise, they consider it to be an accurate reflection of the officer’s record of performance. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-00970
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-00970 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the CY99A (19 April 1999) (P0599A) central lieutenant colonel selection board with an amended Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) which accurately reflects...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02866
A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating that as a result of administrative corrections to his position, he now has all the requirements to meet a position vacancy board: time in grade, a valid lieutenant colonel position, and the intent to nominate. Based on the assumption that...