RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-00897
INDEX CODE: 131.01
APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be retroactively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the
CY98B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
An Army brigadier general was his senior rater while he was assigned to a
joint duty activity. The "definitely promote" (DP) recommendation he
received from his senior rater was not honored by the review boards. It
has been the past practice of the Air Force to ignore "DPs" recommended for
joint duty Air Force officers.
In support of his request applicant has submitted a copy of his CY98B
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) and an excerpt of a magazine article
pertaining to a previous AFBCMR decision in the case of Major M--, which he
believes is similar to his case. His complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 11 Jul 80, the applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of
the Air Force, and was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on 15
Nov 80. He was integrated into the Regular Air Force on 1 Dec 86. He has
been progressively promoted to the grade of major, effective and with a
date of rank of 1 Jan 93. Subsequent to his promotion to that grade he
received nine Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), in which the overall
ratings were "meets standards." Applicant is currently serving on extended
active duty as a Financial Management Officer. Information contained in the
Personnel Data System reveals that he has an established date of separation
(DOS) of 30 Nov 04.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel, below-the-promotion zone (BPZ), by the CY96C and CY97C
selection boards. He was considered and not selected, in-the-promotion
zone (IPZ), by the CY98B selection board, and considered and not selected
above-the-promotion zone (APZ), by the CY99A and CY99B selection boards.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, AF Evaluation Boards, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed applicant's request
and recommends denial. DPPPE states that there are no similarities between
the applicant's case and Major M--'s case. The applicant was serving on a
joint tour within a joint management level; therefore, all officers
competing at this Management Level Review (MLR) would have been serving on
joint tours, many of which would have received "DP" recommendations from
their senior raters. The words "definitely promote," on his PRF does not
obligate the MLR to award that recommendation. This is simply the senior
rater's way of making a strong statement about the officer (see Exhibit C).
The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPP, reviewed applicant's request,
concurs with DPPPE's advisory opinion, and recommends denial (see Exhibit
D).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant responded to the advisory opinions and states that the Air Force
advisors presented no evidence or statistics to support their positions as
would be expected and required under federal rules of evidence and
procedure. If USAF/DPP has information that shows that discrimination
doesn't exist then it should be provided.
The applicant disagrees with the Air Force advisory position that the
"definitely promote" statement on the PRF had no legal or regulatory
significance. AFI 36-2402, requires strict quality control reviews of all
PRFs to ensure they do not contain any exaggerated or unrealistic comments,
or comments that do not support the overall recommendation. If the
"definitely promote" statement was not justified then it should have been
stricken and his senior rater should have been directed to reaccomplish the
PRF.
Applicant states that he has had problems with his promotion records ever
since he "blew the whistle" in 1994 on medical billing irregularities
between activities at Brooks AFB and the Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA) as result of a DVA/DoD Health Care Sharing Agreement. He has made
numerous attempts to obtain information furnished to the Office of General
Counsel, to assist him in having a retaliatory Officer Performance Report
(OPR) removed, but has been repeatedly denied access to investigative
reports and other information due to "investigative privilege."
In further support of his request, applicant has provided documents
relating to other AFBCMR appeals associated with his 5-year attempts to
correct his military records. His complete submission is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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 warranting retroactive promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel. We thoroughly reviewed the applicant's
request; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air
Force office of primary responsibility and conclude that the Management
Level Review (MLR) board's decision to award the applicant a "promote"
recommendation was proper and within it's discretionary authority.
Officers considered under the aggregation process, receive a recommendation
from their senior rater for award of a "definitely promote" (DP) from a
quota of available "DPs". We are not swayed by the applicant's
uncorroborated assertions that his senior raters recommendation was ignored
or that his record was equal to or superior in quality when compared to
those of the officers who received a DP as a result of the MLR board
consideration in the aggregate phase. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting
the relief sought in this application.
4. 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 issues 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 24 Oct 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member
Mr. Daniel F. Wenker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Apr 00, w/Atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 20 Apr 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 25 Apr 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 12 May 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 May 00, w/Atchs.
PATRICIA D. VESTAL
Acting Panel Chair
A discrepancy letter filed in the OSR indicated to the promotion board there was a missing citation, and the level of the medal. Without a definitely promote (DP), the opportunity for promotion while serving in a joint billet appears to be limited. With respect to the applicant’s allegation of not receiving proper representation at the Management Level Review (MLR), the Board majority noted that, according to the governing Air Force instruction, proper procedures were followed in the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01917
Her corrected records be supplementally considered by supplemental Management Level Review (MLR) boards for the CY99B and CY00A selection boards. The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the 19 Aug 03 supplemental MLR for the CY00A board failed in that her record alone was sent to the MLR for a promotion recommendation. DPPPE asserts that substitution of the 1999...
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the CY98B board reflected a promotion recommendation of “Promote.” According to the advisory opinions (Exhibits C, D, and E with Addendum), amendments were made to both the OSB and the PRF before the CY98B board convened. According to HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory (Exhibit D), the CY98 AETC Management Level Review (CY98B) president approved the corrected PRF and determined the “Promote” recommendation was still appropriate. It appears that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00189
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00189 (CASE 2) INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1994A (CY94A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. On 1 Nov 01, the Board...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02184 INDEX CODE: 131.09, 131.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His P0598B promotion recommendation form (PRF) be corrected to reflect "Definitely Promote" and his records with the new PRF be considered by a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to lieutenant colonel. In support of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01251
He has suffered an injustice because had his records been complete at the time the PRF was prepared, he would have received a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation from his senior rater. AFPC/DPPPE contends that the applicant’s senior rater did review accurate information within the applicant’s record at the time the CY99B PRF was completed. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
He still maintains that his senior rater did not give him a strong enough push for a DP at the MLR and that the OPR closing out 17 Jun 97 (originally 5 Aug 97) generated by a Change of Reporting Official was delayed due to rating chain mismanagement and inattentiveness. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a direct promotion. While we understand that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00066
As a further alternative, her record be referred to a Supplemental Management Level Review (SMLR) for “DP” consideration and include her 1 February 2006 Officer Performance Report (OPR) and the contents of her appeal case, that she be granted SSB consideration by the P0506A Non-Line CSB with the re-accomplished PRF reflecting a “DP” recommendation, and, if selected for promotion, be promoted with the appropriate effective date and corresponding back pay and allowances. Additionally, rather...
The applicant further states that the ROE prescribed within Air Force Instructions (AFIs) were violated during the completion of his OPR and PRF. The applicant states that to change an overall rating on a PRF to “Definitely Promote” (DP) requires concurrence of both the senior rater and MLR president. The applicant reiterates that he has the concurrence of his senior rater with a new PRF and a “DP” promotion recommendation.
The applicant has received four OPR’s since his promotion to major, all of which reflect “Meets Standards.” The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Research suggests it was an input error at the applicant’s base level that was not discovered until the OPR was submitted to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC). TERRY A. YONKERS Panel Chair AFBCMR...