ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01663
INDEX CODE: 131.09
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect promotion to the Reserve grade of
colonel.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF THE CASE:
On 18 Feb 99, the Board considered and denied an application
pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that his records be
corrected to reflect promotion to the Reserve grade of colonel (see
AFBCMR 98-01663, with Exhibits A through E).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The affidavit that he has provided should clear up the matter
regarding a letter in his personnel files, which he has mentioned on
numerous occasions.
As to his ability to perform duty as an O-6, there was absolutely no
question. He outperformed his contemporaries every time he went on
his two-week active duty tour. This was shown by his Officer
Performance Reports and other paperwork.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided an affidavit from his
wife.
A complete copy of the applicant’s request for reconsideration is at
Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
In earlier findings, we determined that there was insufficient
evidence to warrant any corrective action regarding the applicant’s
request that his records be corrected to reflect promotion to the
Reserve grade of colonel. We have reviewed the applicant’s most
recent submission and find it insufficient to warrant a reversal of
our previous determination in this case. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence which shows to our satisfaction that the applicant was
selected for promotion to the Reserve grade of colonel, or, that he
was selected but declined the promotion, we adhere to our original
decision and conclude that no basis exists to act favorably on his
request.
_________________________________________________________________
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 7 Jan 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Member
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. Letter, applicant, dated 9 Jul 99, w/atchs.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action.
The appropriate Air Force office evaluated applicant's request and provided an advisory opinion to the Board recommending the application be denied (Exhibit C). Applicant's response to the advisory opinion is at Exhibit E. After careful consideration of applicant's request and the available evidence of record, we find insufficient evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. There is no record of the Reserve grade of lieutenant colonel being questioned within the three-year...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: After a review of his Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period 2 July 1989 through 29 October 1989, he discovered an error in a statement cited in the CY96B PRF. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Acting Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, & Recognition Division, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, states that while the applicant contends the statement in question may have misled the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-01210A
On 3 Mar 98, the Board considered and denied his requests (see Exhibit I). On 7 Apr 99, counsel for the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of applicant’s case (see Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
On 3 Mar 98, the Board considered and denied his requests (see Exhibit I). On 7 Apr 99, counsel for the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of applicant’s case (see Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-01399 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Letter of Evaluation (LOE), dated 3 Feb 96, become a permanent addendum to his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 30 Nov 96; his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), dated 19 May 98, be corrected to reflect his Date of Separation as Indefinite and any reference to a retirement date...
For his 9 Oct 92 duty entry, "A" is correct and there should be a subsequent entry effective 31 Oct 93 to reflect a change from "A" to "C" (see Exhibit C) AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant's request. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the Duty Air Force Specialty Code, effective 6 October 1992, be changed to...
On , the Board considered and denied his requests (see Exhibit I). On , counsel for the applicant provided additional documentation and requested reconsideration of applicant’s case (see Exhibit J). _________________________________________________________________ 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...
He had less than two years eligibility to complete ACSC prior to consideration for LTC IPZ in Apr 99, whereas his peers had at least four and one-half years. He did complete ACSC in Nov 99 in time for the CY99B board’s consideration. Although the applicant did not raise this issue, we believe his not having sufficient time to build a performance record as a major before being considered IPZ for LTC may have contributed to his nonselection.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Director of Personnel Program Management, HQ ARPC/DP, states that applicant’s point history was corrected 31 January 1984; however, he had already been a nonselect for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the second time. According to the point credit branch records, applicant had a history of submitting points two or three years after the fact. It is the member’s responsibility...