RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02286
INDEX NUMBER: 111.01;131.00
XXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: George E. Day
XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be reassigned as a Medical Group Commander.
The Letter of Evaluation (LOE) rendered on him prior to the Officer
Performance Report (OPR) closing 26 Mar 98 be voided and removed from
his records.
The OPR rendered on him closing 26 Mar 98 be declared void and removed
from his record.
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared on him for the CY97A
Promotion Selection Board be substituted with a reaccomplished PRF.
He be awarded an appropriate medal for his service at Altus AFB.
He be considered for promotion to colonel by Special Selection Board
(SSB) for the CY97A Promotion Selection Board.
He receive any other appropriate legal or equitable relief, to include
backpay, to which he is entitled.
The Air Force Form 77, dated 2 Feb 93, be voided, removed from his
records, and replaced with the Commissioned Officers’ Effectiveness
Report rendered on him for the period 19 Sep 90 through 30 Jun 91 by
the U.S. Coast Guard.
It appears from a rebuttal submitted by applicant that he is also
requesting a direct promotion to colonel.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
In a six page statement submitted through counsel, applicant indicates
that he was the victim of an adversarial relationship with the Wing
Inspector General (IG) at Altus AFB, OK. The IG repeatedly used his
position to encourage a series of complaints against the applicant,
which the IG would then confirm. Applicant claims that his Numbered
Air Force commander advised him that he was being assigned to a problem
job in a dysfunctional hospital that had integrity, accountability, and
fraternization problems. The hospital was not accredited and one of
the reasons for his assignment was to get the hospital accredited,
based on his good work in getting hospitals accredited at previous
hospitals. Unfortunately, he became the victim of complaints filed
against him and confirmed by the IG, which led to his being fired for
taking on and fixing the very problems he had been sent to Altus to
fix.
Applicant provides details of his performance and achievements at
assignments prior to and after his assignment to Altus AFB to show that
the accusations against him at Altus fit his pattern of demonstrated
performance. Applicant also provides a copy of the rebuttal he
submitted to the Wing Commander after he was fired. The rebuttal
covers the lack of officership at Altus, rebellious medical personnel,
gross failures to follow regulations and published medical procedures,
cover-up of malpractice, lack of certification of medical personnel,
etc.
Counsel’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of
lieutenant colonel. His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is
5 Mar 89. The applicant’s last ten OPRs indicate overall ratings of
“meets standards.” The applicant did not file an appeal with the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) to void the OPR closing 26 Mar
98 he requests in this application. The applicant did file an appeal
with the ERAB in 1999 to place the Commissioned Officers’ Effectiveness
Report rendered on him for the period 19 Sep 90 through 30 Jun 91
by the U.S. Coast Guard in his records. His appeal was denied due to
the copy of the report he provided not being signed by a reviewer. The
applicant has four nonselections to the grade of colonel by the CY98A
(9 Nov 98), CY99A (8 Nov 99), CY00A (6 Nov 00), and CY01A (22 Oct 01).
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPR recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a
decoration.
Applicant did not provide any official documentation stating he was
unjustly relieved of his command at Altus AFB, OK. It was his
commander’s responsibility to decide whether or not to recommend him
for a decoration.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion
consideration by SSB.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/DPPP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to void his OPR
closing 26 Mar 98. They also note that the LOE the applicant wants
removed is not a matter of record.
The OPR being appealed does not mention the applicant being removed
from command or contain any negative information. Additionally, he
requests to have a substituted PRF, but did not provide a substitute
for the board to consider.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant responded to all three evaluations. He addresses
AFPC/DPPPR’s statement that he did not provide any official
documentation concerning being relieved of command and that it is the
commander’s responsibility to recommend a decoration. He indicates
that there is no documentation concerning the reason he was relieved
from command. The fact that there is no documentation of wrongdoing
substantiates the unjust nature of his being relieved without cause.
Subsequently, if he did no wrong and simultaneously held the equivalent
of three full time positions, he deserves the recognition of a
decoration upon his reassignment. It is a well-known fact that a
commander leaving a command position is decorated for his work, unless
he is relieved for cause during his command. Not receiving a
decoration has placed a significant cloud upon his subsequent
assignments and has unjustly limited his assignments and career
potential.
The applicant indicates that there are multiple issues in his appeal.
The first is his request to have his final report for the period 19 Sep
90 through 30 Jun 91 from the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS)
included in his records. He indicates that he has forwarded copies he
obtained from USPHS for inclusion in his records, but was told that
only originals are accepted. He states that he has never had the
original report as it was sent directly to the Air Force. He states
that at the time of his first nonselect, there was an AF Form 77
regarding the missing report that stated “Not rated for the above
period. Report is not available for administrative reasons.” This
statement and the missing report imply that there is negative
information from his time in the Coast Guard, which is not true.
Multiple commanders and AFPC career counselors that reviewed his record
have stated that the missing report is the only reason they can
attribute his being noncompetitive for promotion to. The AF Form 77
statement and the missing report have caused irreparable damage to his
reputation and career advancement.
Regarding the issue that he did not submit a substantiated IG complaint
concerning his removal from command, he indicates that this appeal is a
request to correct a wrong. He states that when he refused a request
from the Wing IG to falsify a statement, the IG made a direct threat
that he would learn to fear him, and that when he saw things not going
his way, remember what he told him. He claims that the IG also asked,
“When a six foot, two hundred pound black man tells you to do
something, aren’t you the least intimidated?” When he complained to
the Wing Commander and an HQ AETC IG investigated, he was told that it
was only a “misunderstanding.” He contends that it was not a
misunderstanding and that this type of language should never be used
under any circumstances by an officer and absolutely never by an IG.
Regarding the recommendation to deny him an SSB, he contends that the
AF Form 77 statement and the omission of his Commissioned Officer
Effectiveness Report for the period 19 Sep 90 through 30 Jun 91 set
the stage for his non-select to 0-6 even after being given a
“Definitely Promote” recommendation.
Since being relieved of command, he has had his leadership abilities
recognized at each subsequent assignment. The applicant provides a
brief summary of his achievements and the increase in responsibility he
has gained at each assignment.
The complete evaluation 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 error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we did
not find the evidence he presented persuasive in regards to the
allegations he makes. Unfortunately, the IG Report he references as
having confirmed his complaint against his Wing IG is no longer
available. While we note the statements he provided documenting
supposed negative encounters others had with the IG, this alone does
not validate his allegations. We further note that he does not provide
any supporting statements from his former chain of command. Finally,
we also agree with the recommendations and opinions contained in the
evaluations prepared by the Air Force
offices of primary responsibility. Therefore, based on the presumption
of regularity in the conduct of government affairs and the lack 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 Docket Number 01-02286 in
Executive Session on 24 July 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. John B. Smith, Member
Mr. James W. Russell, III, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 31 Aug 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPR, dated 21 Feb 02.
Exhibit D. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 23 May 02.
Exhibit E. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPP, dated 23 May 02.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 May 02.
Exhibit G. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 25 Jun 02.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1999-02707A
Pursuant to the remand order of the United States Court of Federal Claims that the Board review the applicant’s request for promotion consideration to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) and any other matters counsel presents regarding applicant’s separation, we have conducted a thorough analysis of the case file, which now includes counsel’s submission requesting, in addition to SSB consideration, consideration of the applicant’s case and advisory...
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory and provides a “Late Decoration Recommendation” letter from his former commander that he recently found stored in his files and which he wants considered in his request for SSB consideration for his BPZ board [CY95A]. The former commander indicates that, after his departure, “the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1990-01087
The letter, dated 6 June 1996, be removed from his records. In an application, dated 15 February 1990, he requested the following: a. Furthermore, since the reports were matters of record at the time of his promotion consideration by the P0597A and P0698B selection boards, we also recommend he receive promotion consideration by SSB for these selection boards.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and indicated that applicant has no support from the wing commander (and additional rater on the OPR) or either of the senior raters that prepared the contested PRFs (Note: The senior rater that prepared the CY96B PRF was also the reviewer of the contested OPR). A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00497
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00497 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 AUG 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be declared void and removed from his...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit K. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and states that although the applicant has provided support from the senior rater, she provide no support from the MLR president to warrant upgrading the PRF. After reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s records are either in error or unjust. The...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, also evaluated the case and would have no objection to the applicant meeting an SSB with the 25 November 1996 OPR in her records and the requested duty title change made to the CY97A OSB. The applicant, a medical service corps officer, requests special selection board (SSB) consideration for the CY97A (3 Feb 97) (P0497A) major board, With inclusion of the officer performance report...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01473
Additionally, the applicant filed another request to the ERAB on 19 October 2010 requesting the CY2009C PRF be removed and he be provided SSB consideration. The new PRF resurrects the same performance comments from the voided OPR and resulted in the same effect as if the original OPR and PRF were never removed. The senior rater used the PRF to make an end-run around the OPR process after the ERAB decision to void the evaluators original referral OPR and PRF.
In support of his request, applicant submits a personal statement, copies of his PRF for the P0696B Board, a Performance Feedback Worksheet (PFW), a statement from his rater, his Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 29 February 1996, and additional documents associated with the issues cited in his contentions (Exhibit A). If the Board finds that the documentation was unjust and corrective action is appropriate, then for the reasons indicated above, DPAIP2 recommended one of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-1990-01087-3
c. The OPR, closing out 28 November 1989, be amended to reflect a closing date of 18 October 1990. d. The Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 20 June 1994, be amended by changing the statement, “Returned to MG with trepidation, but has met the challenge and is leading Medical Logistics to a new level,” to “Assumed duties, has met the challenge and is leading Medical Logistics to a new level.” e. His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected to reflect the duty title, “Commander,...