Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803151
Original file (9803151.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03151
                 INDEX CODE:  111

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Education/Training Report, AF Form 475, dated 3 November 1987,  be
voided and removed from his records.

Or, in the alternative, the AF Form 475 be changed in Section II, Item
4. To reflect:  “Student eliminated because of proficiency deficiency”
vice “Student eliminated because of academic/proficiency  deficiency.”


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was told by the school at the time, and to  this  date,  that  this
would not affect his career and ability to be promoted.  He has  since
found that it has greatly impacted his consideration for  and  failure
to secure training at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) and
for selection as a Regular officer.  Applicant states there was  never
an academic test of any kind.  There can be no assessment of  academic
deficiency where no exam was given.

Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of
captain.

Applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of major by the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) (1 Jun 98)  Central  Major
Selection Board.

Applicant previously submitted a similar  application  under  AFI  36-
2401.  The Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB) was not convinced  by
the applicant’s documentation and denied  the  appeal  on  22  January
1998.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile, since  promotion
to the grade of captain, is as follows:

          PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

          *  2 Nov 87            Education/Training Report
             2 Aug 91            Meets Standards
            14 Jul 92            Meets Standards
            14 Jul 93            Meets Standards
            14 Jul 94            Meets Standards
            14 Jul 95            Meets Standards
            14 Jul 96            Meets Standards
         #  14 Jul 97            Meets Standards
            14 Jul 98            Meets Standards
            28 Feb 99            Meets Standards

*  Contested report

#  Top report at time of nonselection to the grade of major by
   CY98B Central Major Selection Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPA,  states  that  the
Training Manager at 335 TCHTS/TTOT indicates that from  the  time  the
applicant was eliminated from training, the elimination procedure  has
been changed to truly reflect a proficiency elimination.  The  key  is
that the Training Report (TR) was prepared during  the  time  the  ATC
procedures were in effect.  These procedures applied to  all  officers
eliminated for similar reasons which would indicate the applicant  was
treated no differently from his peers.  To do otherwise  retroactively
would be unfair to those same officers who were  also  eliminated  for
the same reason as the applicant.   Applicant’s  perception  that  the
contested TR has damaged his career opportunities is not a valid basis
for revision or removal of the report.  AFPC/DPPPA  is  not  convinced
the contested TR was a factor  in  the  applicant’s  nonselection  for
promotion.  They recommend the applicant’s request be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the  applicant  on
28 December 1998 for review and response within 30 days.  As  of  this
date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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,  we  are  not
persuaded that  the  contested  Education/Training  Report  should  be
voided and removed from his records or, that the report be changed  in
Section  II,  Item  4,  to  reflect  “Student  eliminated  because  of
proficiency deficiency.”  His contentions are duly noted; however,  we
do not find these uncorroborated assertions,  in  and  by  themselves,
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force.  We therefore agree with the recommendations 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.  Therefore,  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 27 July 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603.

                  Mr. Oscar A. Goldfarb, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                  Mr. Charlie E. Williams Jr., Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Nov 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Officer Selection Record.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 11 Dec 98, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Dec 98.




                                   OSCAR A. GOLDFARB
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803521

    Original file (9803521.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Had he properly reviewed his OPBs prior to either of his BPZ considerations, his record would have been accurate for his P0598B in-the-promotion zone consideration. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he believes he is deserving of promotion and he is simply requesting that he be considered for promotion with accurate...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9803562

    Original file (9803562.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Reports & Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the reviewer for the OPR closing 31 Dec 94 signed as Commander of the USAF Air Warfare Center so “Center” is the correct duty command level for this duty entry. This OPR clearly shows that the duty title was incorrect on the OPB for the 950701 entry; therefore, DPAPS1 changed the duty title for this entry in...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801526

    Original file (9801526.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) did not find it necessary to correct the report as the corrections had already been made by Headquarters AFPC/DPPBR3 on 29 Jan 98. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a two-page rebuttal indicating, in part, that the new TR is the result of a change...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801923

    Original file (9801923.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPPPA stated that both the Education/Training Report (TR) and MSM, 1OLC, were filed in the applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR) and considered by the P0597C central lieutenant colonel selection board. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that it ignores his contention that his pre-board records...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800896

    Original file (9800896.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Had he properly reviewed his OPB at that time, he could have written a letter to the CY97C board president to ensure the information was present for the CY97C board's review - especially if the PME entry was important to his promotion consideration. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C . The Air Force has indicated that the entry for the Brazilian PME course was missing from the applicant's Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the CY97C board.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803324

    Original file (9803324.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The contested report was filed in applicant’s records on 29 Jul 98. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a one-page statement and a statement from his commander. Therefore, we recommend his record, to include the contested report, be considered by an SSB for the CY98B selection board.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 0002097

    Original file (0002097.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02097 INDEX NUMBER: 111.05 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His AF Form 475, Education/Training Report (TR), dated 24 Nov 97 be removed from his permanent file and replaced with the corrected AF Form 475 dated 17 May 00. As such, they do not support substituting the reaccomplished...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9900725

    Original file (9900725.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    As they have stated, the same errors existed on his P0597C OSB, and the applicant has not explained why he took no action when he received his OPB for that board to get the errors corrected. They noted that with the exception of the 1 Apr 94 error (CMHQ vs. W/B), the same errors the applicant is now pointing out were also in existence at the time of the P0494A board as well. Even though they were in error on the OSB, they were correct on the OPRs.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801762

    Original file (9801762.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    With regard to the applicant’s request to correct the Assignment History section on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the CY98B promotion board, we note that AFPC/DPAPS1 concurs with the applicant that the duty titles for 6 May 1991 and 1 October 1991 as reflects “Mechanical Engineer” are incorrect and should be deleted. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that the Air Force Achievement Medal First Oak Leaf...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803398

    Original file (9803398.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The following are documented omissions from his personnel records and Officer Selection Brief (OSB) at the time of the CY98B lieutenant colonel board: 1) Overseas Long Tour at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany: Jan 84- Jan 87. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Reports & Queries Section, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, states, with respect to the applicant’s duty history, that they have reviewed the applicant’s source document Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and AF Forms...