Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03549
Original file (BC-2002-03549.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  02-03549
                                        INDEX CODE 131.01  135.02
                                        COUNSEL: No

                                        HEARING DESIRED: No


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be  awarded  144  extension  course  institute  (ECI)  points,  the
Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Fiscal  Year  2003  (FY03)
Line and Health Professions Lt Colonel Position Vacancy (PV) Selection
Board  be  replaced  and  he  be  given  Special  Review  Board  (SRB)
consideration for the FY03 board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The current year point summary was missing all ECI  points  earned  in
FY02 (144 points).  Failure of the personnel  system  to  update  this
information lowered his total points for the year by 50%. The PRF does
not contain the required information concerning officer potential  for
service in a higher grade for the promotion board’s consideration.

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is  at  Exhibit
A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant, a Reservist, completed Air Command  and  Staff  College
(ACSC) in Apr 02.  This  information  was  contained  on  the  Officer
Selection Brief (OSB) considered by the FY03 Lt Colonel  PV  selection
board,  which  convened  at  HQ  ARPC  on  24 Jun  02.   However,  the
participation points did not appear on the OSB under the  ECI  column.
The applicant was not selected.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ ARPC/DPB advises that AFI 36-2406 states that  recommendations  for
promotion, professional military education (PME) and  next  assignment
(limited  to  next  higher  grade)  may  be  included.  There  is   no
requirement for the  senior  rater  to  comment,  either  directly  or
indirectly, on an officer’s potential for service in a  higher  grade.
The key word in the AFI is “may.” The information contained in the PRF
prepared  for  the  selection  board  provides  positive   information
concerning the applicant’s capabilities. ARPC  indicates  that  if  he
disagrees with the PRF, he must discuss it with the senior  rater  who
prepared the report. If the senior rater agrees there was an error  or
an injustice in the PRF, the senior rater can prepare a different PRF.
The applicant must then apply to the Evaluation Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB). As this administrative avenue is still open to the  applicant,
it must be used  to  appeal  an  evaluation  report  prior  to  AFBCMR
consideration. The applicant’s military personnel  flight  (MPF)  will
provide assistance in completing the required paperwork for  the  ERAB
appeal. However, the applicant’s participation points  were  incorrect
when he met the selection board in question. This could  have  had  an
impact  on  the  board’s  decision.  Therefore,  ARPC  recommends  SRB
consideration  for  the  FY03  PV  board.   They   advise   that   his
participation points will reflect 144 ECI points  completed,  but  the
PRF used will be the same as the one that met the original board.   If
selected, the applicant can receive a date of rank (DOR) of 12 Sep 02.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant on 27 Nov 02 for review and comment within 30 days.   As  of
this date, this office has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was timely filed.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice to warrant  partial  relief.   The
applicant completed  ACSC  in  Apr  02.  While  this  information  was
contained on the FY03 OSB, the 144 participation points did not appear
under the OSB’s ECI column.  This omission may have adversely affected
his  promotion  opportunity  by  not  affording  him  full  and   fair
consideration. We believe his  OSB  should  reflect  the  correct  ECI
points and he should be considered by  an  SRB  for  the  FY03  board.
However, the applicant has not persuaded us that  the  PRF  should  be
altered as he requests.  In this regard, there is  no  requirement  in
the governing  directive  for  the  senior  rater  to  comment  on  an
officer’s potential for service in a higher grade  and  the  applicant
has provided no support from the senior rater indicating that the  PRF
as written is  erroneous.  Therefore,  we  recommend  the  applicant’s
record be corrected to the extent indicated below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, as corrected to reflect  144  extension  course
institute (ECI) points for the period 13 May 2001 through 13 May 2002,
be considered for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel,  Air
Force Reserve, by a Special Review  Board  (SRB)  and  his  record  be
evaluated in comparison with the records of officers who were and were
not  selected  by  the  Fiscal  Year  2003  (FY03)  Line  and   Health
Professions Lt  Colonel  Position  Vacancy  Selection  Board,  and  if
recommended for  promotion  by  the  SRB,  the  Air  Force  Board  for
Correction of Military Records be advised of  that  recommendation  at
the earliest practicable date so that all  necessary  and  appropriate
actions may be completed.

If he is not recommended for promotion  by  the  SRB,  the  office  of
primary responsibility advise him of the recommendation of the SRB.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 11 February 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                  Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Billy Baxter, Member
                  Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR  Docket  Number  02-
03549 was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 02, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ ARPC/DPB, dated 20 Nov 02.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Nov 02.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 02-03549




MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to    , as corrected to reflect 144 extension course
institute (ECI) points for the period 13 May 2001 through 13 May 2002,
be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, Air
Force Reserve, by a Special Review Board (SRB) and his record be
evaluated in comparison with the records of officers who were and were
not selected by the Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) Line and Health
Professions Lt Colonel Position Vacancy Selection Board, and if
recommended for promotion by the SRB, the Air Force Board for
Correction of Military Records be advised of that recommendation at
the earliest practicable date so that all necessary and appropriate
actions may be completed.

      If he is not recommended for promotion by the SRB, the office of
primary responsibility advise him of the recommendation of the SRB.





   JOE G. LINEBERGER

   Director

   Air Force Review Boards Agency

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03393

    Original file (BC-2002-03393.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A health professions officer nominated for PV promotion must complete their PME by the PRF submission date, 45 days before the board convenes. We note that apparently in accordance with the established governing policy, the applicant’s nomination for a PV promotion was returned because she had not completed the appropriate level of professional military education (PME) at the time the PRF was submitted. In this respect, the Board notes that a health professions officer nominated for PV...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0101907

    Original file (0101907.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Her senior raters were never contacted to prepare Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the SRBs; she was never provided an opportunity to review her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the FY97 SRB; and, the OSB for the FY98 SRB was incomplete. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant’s states that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03774

    Original file (BC-2002-03774.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time he was considered for PV promotion, the citation to accompany the award of the MSM was missing from his selection record. In view of this, and since the Reserve Officer Personnel Management Act does not provide ARPC the authority to hold Special Selection Boards (SSBs) for PV promotion boards, we recommend his records, to include the MSM citation, be considered for promotion to the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03392

    Original file (BC-2002-03392.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    After reviewing the comments provided by the Air Force, we are persuaded that the OPR closing 9 May 2001 should have been in his records at the time the FY03 board convened. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include the Officer Performance Report for the period 10 May 2000 through 9 May 2001, be considered for promotion to the grade of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02992

    Original file (BC-2007-02992.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a letter from the 701 MDS/CC certifying his outstanding performance as a member of the unit, two personal statements, a letter supporting the DOR change from the 10 AMDS/CC and endorsed by the 10 MDG/CC, a draft PRF that was not signed or submitted to the AFRES CSB, an endorsement letter from AFRESL/MLL, a vMPF RIP showing DOR timeline, an Education vMPF RIP, an FY03 AFRES Line and Health Professions Captain Select List, a AFRES Change to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02947

    Original file (BC-2004-02947.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    It is further recommended that his record, to include the attached Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, signed by Colonel Close, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, Air Force Reserve, by a Special Review Board (SRB), and his records be evaluated in comparison with the records of officers who were and were not selected by the FY05 Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel PV Promotion Selection Board, and if recommended for promotion by the SRB,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00824

    Original file (BC-2003-00824.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In this regard, we noted the statement from the applicant’s flight commander to HQ ARPC, which the senior rater concurred with, indicating that the applicant’s position vacancy promotion recommendation form (PV PRF) package was completed in a timely manner, but for several reasons was not processed by the published suspense date, resulting in the applicant being denied an opportunity for promotion consideration. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01059

    Original file (BC-2003-01059.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that while it spells out the actual policy and requirements for submission of PV nominations, adequate advanced notice was in fact not received by her senior rater and in turn the nomination and PRF was not submitted in a timely manner. Providing her consideration...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-03036

    Original file (BC-2004-03036.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the attached Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy (PV) Promotion Selection Board, was accepted for file on 22 April 2004. It is further recommended that her record, to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 04553

    Original file (BC 2012 04553.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-04553 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ _ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 1. His record be further corrected to account for his denied promotion opportunities to lieutenant colonel and colonel, in that he was not considered by promotion board for which he would have been eligible had he been accessed in the correct rank. ...