RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02407
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar
Year 1998C Colonel Selection Board be changed.
2. He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Years 1998C, 1999A and 2000A
Central Colonel Selection Boards.
______________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He was wronged by the Air Force Promotion System when he was non-
selected for promotion to colonel during the December 1998 board. He
also contends that he was denied a fair opportunity to compete for
selection due to an egregious mistake of fact on the part of his then
senior rater when preparing his PRF for this board.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement and,
statements from the senior rater and the management level review (MLR)
president.
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the
grade of lieutenant colonel.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade
of colonel by the CY98C, CY99A, and CY00A Central Colonel Selection
Boards.
Applicant submitted an appeal under Evaluations Reports Appeal Board
(ERAB) and his appeal was denied.
Applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) from 1991 through 2001
reflect meets standards on all performance factors.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPP states that the applicant requests he be granted an SSB
because he was denied the opportunity to compete for selection due to
an egregious mistake of fact on the part of his senior rater when
preparing his PRF for the board. The applicant also states that the
PRF did not fairly and accurately characterize his performance for two
months prior to writing this PRF and because he was under gross
misapprehension as to the effect words he used to characterize that
performance. The applicant has provided supporting documentation from
the senior rater and management level review president as required.
However, the senior rater has failed to demonstrate there was a
material error in the PRF; a material error in the record of
performance which substantially impacted the content of the PRF; or a
material error in the process by which the PRF was crafted. In all
instances, the requested change to Section IV must be related to the
documented error. Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant’s
request.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPO states that they concur with AFPC/DPPP’s comments and
recommendation.
A complete copy of this evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
On 9 November 2001, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded
to applicant for review and response within 30 days. As of this date,
no response has been received by this office.
_________________________________________________________________
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 reviewing the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s records
are in error or that he has been the victim of an injustice. His
contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, the detailed comments
provided by the appropriate Air Force offices adequately address those
allegations. Therefore, we agree with opinions and recommendations of
the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the basis for the
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, 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 10 January 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 Aug 01, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 30 Oct 01.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 30 Oct 01.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Nov 01.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Chair
By letter, dated 19 Nov 01, AFPC/DPPPOC notified the applicant that, in response to his 29 Aug 01 application for correction of his military records, they were granting his request for SSB consideration which will consider his record for the CY98A (9 Nov 98), CY99A (8 Nov 99), and CY00A (6 Nov 00) Central Colonel Selection Boards, to include a correction to his 9 Jan 98 duty history entry and missing AFCM (1OLC) on his OSB for those boards. A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at...
Additionally, DPPP states that the applicant’s request for correction was for Section X, Senior Rater, to include the rank and branch of service of the senior rater and in Section IV, line 9 from, “first tour USAF Chaplain” to “second active duty tour.” DPPP recommends denial for an SSB based on the OPR not being available for the CY01A CSB. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the...
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response, the applicant indicated either his OPR contained material errors, or he was placed at a disadvantage at the promotion board because the OPRs of other individuals contained prohibited comments. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a...
AFPC/DPPPO noted that the Office of the Inspector General (DoD) stated, “The overall allegation that Air Force officers working on special access and highly classified programs were at a disadvantage during the promotion process because their performance reports could not include classified information was not substantiated. It is further recommended that his record, to include the attached PRF prepared for the CY99B selection board, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant...
The AF Form 2096 is changing the applicant's DAFSC to include the ItKtt prefix and changing his duty title to read I1Assistant Operations Officer, both effective 8 May 1997. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 13 April 1998 for review and response within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02343
He was not able to receive a copy of the signed recommendation until his request for records following the promotion board. In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his PRF, the letter to the CY04A Lt Col Central Selection Board, and his Commander’s 18 Feb 04 letter to the Board. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material...
The AFPC/DPPPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 2 November 2001, for review and response. Since the report was not timely filed in his records through no fault of the applicant, we recommend that he applicant be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by SSB for the CY01A board. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01917
Her corrected records be supplementally considered by supplemental Management Level Review (MLR) boards for the CY99B and CY00A selection boards. The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the 19 Aug 03 supplemental MLR for the CY00A board failed in that her record alone was sent to the MLR for a promotion recommendation. DPPPE asserts that substitution of the 1999...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02209
He filed an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, on 20 February 2004. If the applicant’s record is not accurate, then both he and this Board have the duty to correct his record. For the reason stated and the other evidence provided, request the Board provide the relief requested.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02441
In support of his request applicant provided a copy of his original PRF and corrected PRF, a letter of support from his senior rater, AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports and a letter from the Supplemental Management Level Review (MLR) President, and AFPC/DPPPE. AFPC/DPPP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPP amended its previous Air Force evaluation to state the ERAB failed to consider the case after the AF...