RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02383
INDEX CODES: 131.01, 131.09
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His late father’s records be reconsidered for promotion to major based
on the removal of his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) rendered for
the period 1 Apr 67 through 19 Nov 67; and, his father be posthumously
promoted to the grade of major.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His father would have been promoted were it not for the contested OER,
which was eventually removed from his records.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
extracts from his father’s military personnel records, including his
OERs, and documentation pertaining to his father’s application for
correction of military records.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the
letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this Record of
Proceedings.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Officer Promotion Section, AFPC/DPPPO, reviewed this application
and recommended denial. DPPPO noted that the applicant’s father was
considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of temporary
major by the Fiscal Year 1969 (FY69) and Fiscal Year 1970 (FY70)
boards, which convened on 8 Jul 68 and 21 Apr 69, respectively. Since
he was twice considered and not recommended for promotion, he was
required to separate. On 30 Nov 69, he was released from active duty
and, on 1 Dec 69, the applicant’s father enlisted as a staff sergeant
(SSgt). On 1 Jan 72, he retired as a captain.
DPPPO also noted that, on 5 Sep 69, the applicant’s father requested
the contested OER be voided and removed from his records. On 26 Sep
69, his request was approved. On 10 Oct 69, he requested his
nonselections be set aside and his records be corrected to show he did
not meet the FY69 and FY70 promotion boards. No documentation is
available to determine what action was taken on his application. On
22 Jun 70, he reapplied and requested reinstatement to active duty as
a captain. On 14 Aug 70, his request was denied.
According to DPPPO, there are no provisions to grant the applicant's
father reconsideration based on removal of the OER. Special Selection
Boards were established to consider officers who were eligible for
consideration by a selection board, but because of late accession
reporting or erroneous eligibility data were not considered. On 31
Mar 76, Special Review Boards were established for officers whose
record had been corrected or changed. This provided the Deputy
Assistant Secretary (SAF/MR) the opportunity to refer an officer’s
record to a board when there was reasonable doubt as to whether the
officer would have been selected for promotion if his/her record had
been correct at the time of the board. Additionally, Special Review
Boards could only be used for boards which convened after 1 Jul 70.
Per 10 U.S.C., Section 1521, the President may issue an appropriate
commission in the name of a member of the armed forces who, after 8
Sep 39, was officially recommended for appointment or promotion to a
commissioned grade and the recommendation for whose appointment or
promotion was approved by the Secretary concerned but the member was
unable to accept the promotion or appointment because of death in line
of duty. The applicant’s father was neither on active duty nor on a
promotion list at the time of his death.
Although they empathize with the situation, DPPPO indicated that there
are no provisions for the applicant’s father to meet a supplemental
promotion board. In addition, the applicant’s father was not selected
or recommended for promotion and was not on active duty at the time of
his death. Therefore, there is no entitlement for a posthumous
promotion. According to DPPPO, they have no recommendation should the
Board elect to grant relief to the applicant.
A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 3 Nov
00 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. The applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were
duly noted. However, we do not find the applicant’s assertions and
the documentation presented in support of his appeal sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force office
of primary responsibility (OPR). While we find the circumstances of
this case unfortunate, no evidence has been presented which has shown
to our satisfaction that the former service member would have been
promoted without the now voided OER in his records as the applicant
contends. In view of the above, and in the absence of clear-cut
evidence to the contrary, we adopt the Air Force rationale and
conclude that no basis exists 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 17 Jan 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Ms. Carolyn J. Watkins, Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 28 Aug 00, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 16 Oct 00.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Nov 00.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 01-01765 INDEX CODE 131.10 102.03 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Not Indicated _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be afforded a special records review regarding his promotability to the grade of lieutenant colonel (LTC) on the Aug 67 promotion cycle and he be promoted retroactively to LTC, or at least to LTC in the Retired...
In this respect, we note that the applicant was promoted to the grade of major with those entries in his records. We find no evidence that he ever took action to correct his duty history after his first nonselection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY99B (30 Nov 99) Lt Col Board. Thus, his duty history contained those same entries when he was considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A (28 Nov 00) Lt Col Board.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01016
He was not involved, but his base commander downgraded his OER because he was on the staff of the local commander. He received a corrected statement; however, by that time the promotion board had already met. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response dated June 8, 2006, the applicant disagreed with the Air Force findings and recommendations.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00070
However, he was not selected to the grade of colonel. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEB notes the applicant has not provided a new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior rater and management level evaluation board as required. Also, to suggest that the policy prevented him from being promoted is not warranted as other AFIT attendees, who received training reports, have been promoted to the grade of colonel.
The AFBCMR has considered these previous cases: In an application dated 18 January 1965, the applicant, a captain, made the following request: The AF Form 77, USAF Officer Effectiveness Report (OER), for the period 1 August 1963 - 31 May 1964 be removed from his records. In an application dated 13 May 1972, the applicant, a major, made the following requests: a. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His personnel record did not contain his OPR closing 31 May 00 and was not a matter of record to compliment his promotion recommendation. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his OPR closing 31 May 00 and his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF). Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
Air Force Regulation 36-89, Oct 77, stated eligibility criteria for promotion to captain as two years time in grade as a first lieutenant. A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and noted that the applicant was selected for promotion by the CY97A (3 Feb 97) lieutenant colonel selection board. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2011-02077
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant was not selected for Regular Air Force (RegAF) by the Fiscal Year 66 (FY66), FY68 and FY70 Regular Air Force Selection Boards. DPSOO opines a direct promotion would be unfair to other officers who were not selected for Regular Air Force and required to retire at the 20 year point without being able to meet a lieutenant colonel promotion board. Accordingly, we conclude that it would not be in...
A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C. On 12 May 92, the Board considered and denied an application pertaining to the applicant, requesting that she be returned to active duty and promoted to the grade of major. On 15 May 95, the AFBCMR directed that her record be corrected, that she be returned to active duty, that she be promoted to major with a date of rank of 1 Sep 88, and that she not be considered nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel until...
Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice warranting corrective action regarding the “Assistant Staff Judge Advocate” entry, with an effective date of 1 Jan 92, and the Command Level entry with an effective date of 27 Jul 98, in the Assignment History Section of the applicant’s OSB. Concerning the applicant’s requests that her CY99B OSB be amended in the Assignment History Section by removing the “Assistant Staff Judge...