RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03109
INDEX CODE 131.01/131.09
XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
XXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC) as if selected
by the Calendar Year 1997D (CY97D) Central LTC board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was passed over for promotion because he was not allowed a fair
comparison with his peers. He’s “filled in the squares” and there are
no apparent reasons why he was nonselected while individuals with
inferior records have been promoted. There are critical flaws with
the existing promotion system. Board instructions regarding the “whole
person” concept are vague and blatantly overlooked by board members.
The sampling method used by promotion boards is not the most
appropriate. Without reliability and validity studies it cannot be
known whether the promotion system in fact selects individuals best
suited for increased responsibility. Because of their clinical demand,
clinical neuropsychologists are not available to undertake tasks and
assignments that peers in other disciplines can. As a consequence of
not having frequent permanent change of stations (PCSs), medals are
not consistently awarded. The probability of getting promoted appears
to be based largely on the creative writing skills of raters.
“Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendations on Promotion Recommendation
Forms (PRFs) are not fairly distributed, not always given to the best
qualified and assure promotion to those who may not necessarily be the
strongest candidates.
In support, he provides the PRFs of individuals who were in situations
similar to his and were selected while he was not. Also submitted is a
statement signed by the rater and additional rater of the Officer
Performance Report (OPR) closing 29 Jun 99.
His complete submission, with seven attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving in the grade of major (date of
rank: 1 Jan 93) as Chief, Enhanced Flight Screening-Neuropsychiatry at
Brooks AFB, TX. He was considered but not selected for promotion to
LTC by the CY97D (5 Nov 97), CY98B (1 Jun 98), CY99A (19 Apr 99), and
CY99B (30 Nov 99) selection boards. His PRFs for these boards reflect
an overall promotion recommendation of “Promote.”
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this
appeal and provides his rationale for recommending denial. The Chief
notes the applicant does not request a revision of his OPRs/PRFs.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Chief of Ops, Selection Board Secretariat, HQ AFPC/DPPB, reviewed
this appeal and provides his rationale for recommending denial. The
Chief notes the applicant does not contest the accuracy and
completeness of his own record.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D.
The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this appeal
and provides her rationale for recommending denial.
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded that he does not allege there are significant
errors in his record. However, an injustice occurred because he was
not allowed a fair comparison with his peers and was nonselected while
others with inferior records were promoted. The advisories did not
address all of his 15 issues.
A complete copy of applicant’s response is at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that he should be promoted to LTC by the correction of
records process. The applicant’s numerous contentions are duly noted;
however, we do not find these uncorroborated assertions, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force. The applicant has not submitted persuasive evidence
that he was not provided full and fair consideration for promotion by
the contested selection boards. Further, since he has neither
identified any error in his records that warrant correction nor
sustained his contention that an injustice has occurred, we conclude
that promotion consideration by Special Selection Board is also
unwarranted. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the Air
Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision
that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered
either an error or an injustice. In view of the above and absent
persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to
recommend relief.
_________________________________________________________________
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 25 May 2000 under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Teddy Houston, Panel Chair
Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 21 Dec 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPB, dated 31 Jan 00.
Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 7 Feb 00.
Exhibit F. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Feb 00.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Mar 00.
TEDDY HOUSTON
Panel Chair
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...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-03600
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...
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...
The Family Advocacy record and all references to child abuse be removed from his records as well as the medical records of his wife and child. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: a. The Letter of Reprimand dated 6 Jun 97, with the resultant Unfavorable Information File; the Field Grade Officer Performance Report, AF...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1993-06562A
On 27 Sep 94, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that he be given SSB consideration by the CY92B Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 16 Nov 92 (see AFBCMR 93- 06562), with Exhibit A through D). A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit G. The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed the applicant’s submission and addressed the portion of his appeal pertaining...
On 27 Sep 94, the Board considered and denied an application for correction of military records pertaining to the applicant, in which he requested that he be given SSB consideration by the CY92B Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 16 Nov 92 (see AFBCMR 93- 06562), with Exhibit A through D). A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit G. The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed the applicant’s submission and addressed the portion of his appeal pertaining...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1996-02697
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...
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...
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...
A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Reports and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the OPRs and the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) accurately reflected the duty titles contained on source document OPRs for duty history entries of 960601 and 980206. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his...