Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1994-04946B
Original file (BC-1994-04946B.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                             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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9404946B

    Original file (9404946B.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9501269

    Original file (9501269.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9700919

    Original file (9700919.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-1996-03600.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9603600

    Original file (9603600.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9702337

    Original file (9702337.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9502111A

    Original file (9502111A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-1995-02111A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ 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

    Original file (BC-1998-00348.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800348

    Original file (9800348.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...