RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00624
INDEX CODE: 110.03, 131.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. The bar to her reappointment as a Reserve commissioned officer be
removed from her records and she be reinstated as an Air Force Reserve
officer.
2. She be reconsidered for promotion to the Reserve grade of captain by
a Special Review Board (SRB) for the Fiscal Years 1994 (FY94) and 1995
(FY95) Reserve of the Air Force (ResAF) Captain Selection Boards.
In the applicant’s statement dated 11 August 1998, she requests that prior
to the convening of the ResAF Selection Review Board, she be afforded the
opportunity to provide to that Board written documentation attesting to her
civil employment, from 1996 to the present date, as Director of Nursing at
Enterprise Nursing Home, her appointment as Adjunct Faculty Member at
Wallace State College, Dothan, AL, and other cogent factors based on the
whole person concept which the Board may use to fully assess her potential
for service in the grade of captain.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Her unblemished record of superior service as an Air Force Reserve Forces
Flight Nurse, from initial appointment on 3 December 1986 through September
1991, including mobilization and deployed service in Operation Desert Storm
overseas, was followed by circumstances which absolutely precluded her
active participation in Reserve activities. The bar to her reappointment
after the Selection Board twice failed to recommend her promotion, was
unjustly imposed without taking into account her extremely difficult
pregnancy in 1994 and her subsequent daily role as a Primary Nurse to her
mother who succumbed in September 1995 to a malignant brain tumor less than
two years earlier in April 1994. Her military records placed before the
ResAF Selection Boards were substantially in error. The
transitory humanitarian factors which temporarily precluded her
participation and service in an organized unit of the Ready Reserve, and
the acquisition of her Degree of Master of Science in Organization
Effectiveness, together with her concurrent Total Quality Management
Certification were missing from her records.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits four statements and a letter
from the HQ 89 Airlift Wing, Humanitarian Deferment.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, ResAF, Nurse Corps, on 18
December 1986.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of
captain by the FY94 and FY95 ResAF Captain Selection Boards.
On 20 November 1994, the applicant was transferred to the Nonaffiliated
Reserve Section (NARS/NB), with Reserve status of Standby.
On 2 March 1995, the applicant was relieved from assignment HQ ARPC
(NNRPS/RD) and honorably discharged from all appointments in the United
States Air Force.
OER/OPR profile since 1987, follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
02 Dec 87 1-1-1
19 Oct 89 Meets Standards
19 Oct 90 Meets Standards
# 19 Oct 91 Meets Standards
# Top report for FY94 and FY95 boards.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DP, reviewed the
application and states that since deliberations are not made public, they
cannot ascertain specifically why the applicant was not selected for
promotion. Promotion is based on the whole person concept which includes
performance, breadth of experience, job responsibility, professional
competence, specific
achievements, academic and professional military education, leadership,
civilian skills and military participation. All of these factors are used
to assess an officer’s potential for serving in the next higher grade. The
applicant’s officer selection folder (OSF) did not contain a referral OPR
or any other negative information at the time it was reviewed by the
selection board. The DD Form 214, referred to by the applicant, is not a
document approved for inclusion in the OSF. AFR 36-11, 31 March 1992,
Reserve of the Air Force Officer Promotions, attachment 2, lists the
specific documents which can be reviewed by the selection boards. The
humanitarian factors the applicant felt the board should have been aware of
could only have been submitted to the board in the form of a personal
letter to the board written by the applicant. It is the member’s
responsibility to ensure their record is correct and new information
updated to their record prior to the board convening. A personal letter to
the board is the only option available that allows members to present
information to the selection board that would not be found in their OSF or
on the OSB. At this time, no documentation is available to determine when
the applicant completed the Master of Science Degree in Organizational
Effectiveness or that the applicant provided the Air Force Institute of
Technology (AFIT) with the correct documentation to update the academic
portion of the officer selection brief (OSB) prior to the FY94 and FY95
boards. They recommend denial of applicant's request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that she is
firmly convinced that the errors as they relate to the erroneous inclusion
in her record of instances of absence from Reserve participation in 1991,
1992, and 1993, which were improperly categorized as unexcused, constitute
the height of injustice. These errors were the clear proximate cause of
her failure of selection for promotion to the grade of captain by the
consecutive Reserve promotion boards which considered her file. The record
shows her file consisted exclusively of successive performance reports
demonstrating consistent superior performance, and was otherwise totally
devoid of any referral or other derogatory materials of any description.
She is equally certain that the crucial errors in her military service
records were compounded by the fundamental errors which resulted from the
total exclusion from the materials presented to the promotion selection
boards, of any of the transitory humanitarian factors which in 1994 and
1995 temporarily precluded her participation and service in an organized
unit of the Ready Reserve. These
fundamental errors of both commission and omission described were further
compounded by the total absence from the materials present to the promotion
selection boards of any reference to her civilian pursuits and
achievements, including award of the Degree of Master of Science in
Organizational Effectiveness.
Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at 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. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. In this respect we note that it
is the member’s responsibility to ensure that their record is correct and
new information updated to their record prior to the convening of the
selection board. We are of the opinion that the applicant made no effort
to submit the necessary documentation to update the academic portion of her
officer selection brief (OSB) prior to the convening of the FY94 and FY95
boards. It is noted that the applicant was formally awarded the Master of
Science Degree on 1 May 1993, three months prior to the convening of the
FY94 Selection Board. Regarding the humanitarian factors the applicant
felt the board should have been aware of, these factors could have been
written in a personal letter to the board. In view of the foregoing and in
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.
_________________________________________________________________
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 8 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Oscar A. Goldfarb, Panel Chair
Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member
Mr. David E. Hoard, Member
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Feb 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DP, dated 20 May 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jun 98.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 11 Aug 98, w/atchs.
OSCAR A. GOLDFARB
Panel Chair
The bar to her reappointment as a Reserve commissioned officer be removed from her records and she be reinstated as an Air Force Reserve officer. In the applicant’s statement dated 11 August 1998, she requests that prior to the convening of the ResAF Selection Review Board, she be afforded the opportunity to provide to that Board written documentation attesting to her civil employment, from 1996 to the present date, as Director of Nursing at Enterprise Nursing Home, her appointment as...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-01894 INDEX CODE 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: In a application dated 27 June 1996, applicant requested that the Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) considered by the Fiscal Year 1993 (FY93), FY94 and FY95 Reserve of the Air Force (ResAF) Colonel Overall Vacancy Selection Boards be...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9601894A.doc
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 96-01894 INDEX CODE 131.09 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: In a application dated 27 June 1996, applicant requested that the Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) considered by the Fiscal Year 1993 (FY93), FY94 and FY95 Reserve of the Air Force (ResAF) Colonel Overall Vacancy Selection Boards be...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1996-01804-3
Counsel submitted statements (and other attachments) from senior officers familiar with the applicant’s career who essentially contended the applicant’s record was so strong he would have been promoted if his record had been correct when first considered by the central selection boards. Statements were provided from three individuals (two retired brigadier generals, and a retired colonel), who indicated they were in the applicant’s chain of command and endorsed his direct promotion based on...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02002 INDEX CODE: 131 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel, with a corrected Officer Selection Brief (OSB), by special selection board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1998A (CY98A) Central Colonel Selection Board. A copy of the Air Force...
He contends his nonselections for promotion should be set aside on the basis that the Central Reserve Officer Promotion Act (ROPA) Boards were conducted in violation of statute and Air Force directives. As a result of an earlier application to the AFBCMR, an SRB was directed but the applicant was not recommended for selection for promotion by that SRB. We note the applicant cites an AFBCMR case wherein the Board recommended direct promotion.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02894A
He contends his nonselections for promotion should be set aside on the basis that the Central Reserve Officer Promotion Act (ROPA) Boards were conducted in violation of statute and Air Force directives. As a result of an earlier application to the AFBCMR, an SRB was directed but the applicant was not recommended for selection for promotion by that SRB. We note the applicant cites an AFBCMR case wherein the Board recommended direct promotion.
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00788
Of the 25 selected, 14 had not completed the appropriate level of PME, the FY94 board considered 48 members and selected 43 for promotion. Exhibit C. Record of Proceedings for Major XXX, dated 28 May 96. BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-00788 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it...
Of the 25 selected, 14 had not completed the appropriate level of PME, the FY94 board considered 48 members and selected 43 for promotion. Exhibit C. Record of Proceedings for Major W---, dated 28 May 96. BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV Panel Chair AFBCMR 98-00788 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it...
Of the 25 selected, 14 had not completed the appropriate level of PME, the FY94 board considered 48 members and selected 43 for promotion. 111 Major W---Is case, the Commander, HQ ARPC, stated that, due to significantly lower overall selection rates on the FY96 ResAF board when compared to previous years and ar, apparent correlation between being determined "fully qualified" for promotion 2nd completing PME, it was possible that members of the FY96 ResAF board may not have followed the...