RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-01662
INDEX CODE: 131.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be considered for Intermediate Service School (ISS) candidacy in-
residence.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
She was an Air National Guard (ANG) member when she was considered for
promotion to major. Therefore, she was not considered for candidacy.
The ANG does not offer “candidacy”--all are considered a candidate.
She has researched the option of a Special Selection Board (SSB) but
that requires that she be considered under the same standards as her
peers on that board. Since she is now on active duty, she does not
have a peer group against whom she can fairly compete.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement,
copies of her separation documents, and a letter pertaining to
selection for extended active duty.
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 Assignment Programs and Procedures Division, AFPC/DPAP, reviewed
this application and recommended denial. DPAP noted that the
applicant was selected for major while serving in the Air National
Guard (ANG). ANG promotees are not identified as Professional
Military Education (PME) candidates during the promotion board
process. They are identified as candidates based on the commander’s
recommendation and availability.
DPAP indicated that the ANG leadership considered but did not select
the applicant to attend ISS in-residence upon promotion to major. She
was not identified as an ISS candidate upon entering active duty from
the ANG. According to DPAP, she is now eligible to compete annually
for ISS selection as a non-candidate.
A complete copy of the DPAP evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response and
additional documentary evidence which are attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
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 note that the
applicant was a former ANG member who voluntarily applied to return to
active duty. However, prior to returning to active duty she was
selected for promotion to the grade of major. She contends that as a
major selectee, she was unable to apply for ISS before separating from
the ANG. Therefore, she now requests that she be considered for ISS
candidacy as an active duty officer. She believes she should be
afforded the same opportunity to be considered for ISS candidacy as
all other captains who meet a major board. After a thorough review of
the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not persuaded that
any corrective action is warranted. ISS candidacy is determined
during the major promotion board for active duty personnel where only
a limited number of promotees are selected as ISS candidates. Since
she was an ANG asset when she was selected for promotion to major, her
consideration for ISS candidacy as an active duty officer was not
warranted. We think at this point it is worth noting that even if the
applicant had been considered for ISS candidacy, she still may not
have been selected as a candidate. Also, being selected as a
candidate does not guarantee selection to attend ISS in-residence,
which is determined by the ISS selection board where only the best
qualified are selected. Finally, we note that the applicant still can
compete for ISS as a non-candidate if she is nominated by her
management level. In view of the foregoing, 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 27 Sep 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Panel Chair
Mr. Timothy A. Beyland, Member
Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Apr 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPAP, dated 31 Jul 01.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 10 Aug 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, applicant, dated 7 Sep 01, w/atchs.
PATRICK R. WHEELER
Panel Chair
In an addendum dated 16 Aug 01, the applicant further requests that his record be considered at a Special Selection Board (SSB) for consideration to attend Intermediate Service School in residence; and if his record is selected for an SSB that he be allowed to forward a letter (enclosed) to the Board President (Exhibit G). _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The AFPC/DPAP states that promotion boards do not select officers to attend ISS...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01817
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. We are not persuaded by the evidence submitted that he was not provided full and fair consideration by the ISS Central...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00807
2 The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C through E. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAPF recommends an SSB be convened and the applicant’s record be competed for an in-residence seat against officers actually selected for ISS during his eligibility window. The complete DPSID evaluation is at...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-03255 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for Senior Service School (SSS) candidacy by the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection (P0599A) Board, which convened on 19 Apr 99. Since the...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00960 INDEX CODE 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reconsidered for Intermediate Service School (ISS) candidacy by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Major Central Selection Board with the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 3 April 1998 included in his selection folder, and the CY98B Officer Selection Brief...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2001-03039
On 15 Sep 99, applicant was notified of his commander's intent to impose nonjudicial punishment on him under Article 15, UCMJ. JAJM stated that a set aside should only be granted when the evidence demonstrates an error or a clear injustice. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPASC states that, if and only if, the applicant’s request is approved, they would recommend removal of the job entry titled, “Commander, HQ Squadron Section” from his duty history and...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2008-01427-3
By letter, dated 26 Jul 10, the applicant provided a response to the advisories; stating neither he or his attorney received copies of the Air Force evaluations and had the Board been provided the additional letters of support, with the recommended change to his OER closing 14 Feb 84, he believes the recommended change to the rater and additional rater comments would have rendered more positive results (Exhibit H). He attached previous correspondence from the AFBCMR staff; however, in this...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC 2008 01427 3
By letter, dated 26 Jul 10, the applicant provided a response to the advisories; stating neither he or his attorney received copies of the Air Force evaluations and had the Board been provided the additional letters of support, with the recommended change to his OER closing 14 Feb 84, he believes the recommended change to the rater and additional rater comments would have rendered more positive results (Exhibit H). He attached previous correspondence from the AFBCMR staff; however, in this...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02681 INDEX CODE: 107.00,111.03 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 30 May 1997 be removed from his records, the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) awarded for the period 20 Oct 95 to 1 Jul 98 be upgraded to a Meritorious...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03649
The rater and additional rater of the contested OPR provide statements contending that the correct PME level on the report should have been for SSS rather than ISS. The OPR closing 23 Jun 97 recommends SSS in residence. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice to warrant altering the 23 Jun 96 OPR to reflect a PME recommendation of “SSS” rather than “ISS” and granting SSB consideration for the CY99A selection board.