RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03132
INDEX CODE: 131.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS:
Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the Calendar Year
1995B (CY95B) (27 Nov 95) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY95B board was
received on 20 Nov 95 contrary to the provisions of AFR 36-10,
paragraph 4-9(a)(6), and AFR 36-89, paragraph 11(b)(1). Not receiving
a copy of his PRF 30 days prior to the convening of the CY95B board
unjustly deprived him of sufficient time and opportunity to review the
PRF inputs and write an informed letter to the promotion board
president.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal brief, a
letter of support from former rater, and a letter submitting the
finalized CY95B PRF to him.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
10 Mar 83. He is currently serving on extended active duty in the
grade of major, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Apr 90.
Applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since 1989
follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
16 Jun 89 Meets Standards
16 Jun 90 Meets Standards
12 Jun 91 Meets Standards
12 Jun 92 Meets Standards
12 Jun 93 Meets Standards
12 Jun 94 Meets Standards
12 Jun 95 Meets Standards
12 Jun 96 Meets Standards
28 Feb 97 Meets Standards
28 Feb 98 Meets Standards
26 Jul 98 Meets Standards
26 Jul 99 Meets Standards
Applicant has four nonselections for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel by the CY94A (11 Oct 94), CY95B, CY97B (2 Jun 97),
and CY97E (8 Dec 97) lieutenant colonel boards.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPAB, reviewed this
application and indicated that it appears that the applicant is trying
to convince the Board that since he did not receive his copy of the
PRF until one week before the CY95B board convened, he was not
afforded the opportunity to write a personal letter to the CY95B board
president. His contentions are without merit. While the applicant
would have us believe he could not send a letter to the CY95B board
president unless he received the PRF at least 20-30 days prior to the
CY95B board, it should be pointed out that he was told he could write
the board president when he received his officer preselection brief
approximately 90 days prior to the CY95B board. The applicant further
does not explain what information he would have added that was not
available to board members when they reviewed his officer selection
record (OSR). If he was concerned about important information missing
from his OSR, he should have written a letter regardless as to when he
received his PRF. The fact remains, he did not have to wait until
after he received his copy of the CY95B PRF to write the board
president. While the applicant believes he did not receive his PRF
within the time limits outlined by regulation, AFR 36-10, paragraph 4-
9a(6), states, “The senior rater provides the ratee a copy of the PRF
approximately 30 days before the central selection board.”
Furthermore, while the applicant appears to be focusing on when he
received his PRF, he does not provide any evidence that the PRF is
inaccurate as written. Regardless of when he received the PRF, the
question is does the PRF correctly describe the officer’s performance
and promotion potential? Based on the evidence provided, DPPPAB
recommends denial.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is
attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a three-
page rebuttal, with attachments (see Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, including the
statement from his former rater, we are not persuaded that he should
be given the requested relief. His contentions 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. His contentions have been adequately addressed by the Air
Force and we are in complete agreement with their recommendation.
Therefore, we agree with the recommendation of the Air Force and adopt
the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the
applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either
an error or an injustice. In view of the foregoing, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
_________________________________________________________________
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 9 September 1999, under the provisions of Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:
Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 8 Dec 98, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 21 Dec 98.
Exhibit E. Letter fr applicant, dated 6 Jan 99, w/atchs.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
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...
A complete copy of the DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit C. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that the central consideration in this appeal is whether the many approved official changes to his records, as documented by himself and the MLR President, is sufficient to allow the promotion recommendation to be raised from “Promote” to “Definitely Promote.” The Senior Rater and MLR President contend that it is definitely sufficient, and they are the ones that should...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02562 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1997D (CY97D) (5 Nov 97) Central Major Board with inclusion of the Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 24 Nov 96 through 30 Jun 97 in her...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After a review of his Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period 2 July 1989 through 29 October 1989, he discovered an error in a statement cited in the CY96B PRF. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Acting Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, & Recognition Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, states that while the applicant contends the statement in question may have misled the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03777
Inasmuch as the above corrections were accomplished subsequent to his consideration for promotion by the CY97B and CY97E Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, we recommend that the applicant’s corrected record be reviewed when he is considered for promotion by an SSB. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY 97B (2 June 1997) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and for any subsequent board for...
Inasmuch as the above corrections were accomplished subsequent to his consideration for promotion by the CY97B and CY97E Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, we recommend that the applicant’s corrected record be reviewed when he is considered for promotion by an SSB. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY 97B (2 June 1997) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and for any subsequent board for...
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...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 4 May 1998 for review and response. Contrary to applicant's assertions that this individual did not have the background in ICBMs to properly assess his record, we note that the new Senior Rater, in addition to having access to applicant's Record of Performance, had access to experts from all weapon systems. ...
As an alternative, that his record, with the corrected PRF, indicating the proper duty title be directed to meet a Special Selection Board (SSB). On 18 Jun 97, the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) was convinced by the applicant’s documentation that the duty title needed correction but did not grant promotion reconsideration by the CY96C board since their “authority to grant SSB consideration is restricted to cases in which the evidence clearly warrants promotion...
The instructions specifically state that officers will not be considered by an SSB if, in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission in his/her records and could have taken timely corrective action. Had he been diligent in maintaining his records, the duty title would have been present on the OSB for the board’s review. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Nov 98.