Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-03189A
Original file (BC-1995-03189A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                                 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 X.
 After again reviewing Colonel X.’s statement, we are  not  persuaded
that his letter  supports  applicant’s  contention  that  he  was  so
discouraged by what Colonel X. told him that he left the  Air  Force.
On the contrary, it appears that Colonel X. 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

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9503189A

    Original file (9503189A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2002-00890.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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 | CY1998 | 9703386

    Original file (9703386.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-1997-03386.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    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 | 9801732

    Original file (9801732.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02697

    Original file (BC-1996-02697.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9602697

    Original file (9602697.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9701621

    Original file (9701621.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...