ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1991-02414
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 10 October 1989, and the
Recall Assessment Sheet (RAS), dated 13 February 1990, be voided; and he be
reinstated to active duty.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 28 January 1992, the Board considered applicant’s request that the
Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 10 October 1989, and the Recall
Assessment Sheet (RAS), dated 13 February 1990, be voided; and he be
reinstated to active duty. The Board found insufficient evidence that the
contested OPR or the RAS were rendered in violation of the provisions of
the governing regulations or that they were inaccurate assessments of the
applicant’s performance and potential. Concerning the applicant’s request
for reinstatement to active duty, the Board found that although an
administrative error occurred when the applicant was not appointed a
Reserve officer on the day following his discharge, this fact did not
warrant a finding that his discharge was erroneous. In this regard, the
Board noted that his discharge was not a required action, but had its basis
in his tender of resignation. For a further accounting of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the application, and the rationale of the earlier
decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit G.
In a letter, dated 1 August 1995, the applicant requested reconsideration
of his application and provided additional documentation (Exhibit H);
however, in a letter dated 8 October 1997, he was advised that his request
did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board (Exhibit I).
In letters, dated 18 February and 4 March 2003, the applicant requests
reconsideration of his application and provides additional documentation
that includes a statement from his former commander/rater and written
documentation of support from his former wing commander.
The applicant’s complete submissions are at Exhibits J and K.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After a thoroughly reviewing the
additional documentation submitted by the applicant, we are not persuaded
that relief should be granted. The statement from the rater and supporting
documentation from the wing commander are duly noted; however, they do not
substantiate that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of the
applicant’s performance during the period of the report. While the rating
officials indicate they are willing to sign a reaccomplished report, they
do not indicate what is in error or unjust in the report. Furthermore,
they do not indicate what information they know now that they did not know
at the time the report was rendered. In regards to the contested RAS, he
does not provide any evidence to substantiate that it is in error or
unjust. Therefore, we find the applicant has failed to sustain his burden
that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Hence, we find no
compelling basis to disturb the Board’s earlier decision.
2. 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 additional evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of 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 BC-1991-02414
in Executive Session on 21 August 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
Ms. Martha J. Evans, Member
Mr. E. David Hoard, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit G. Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Feb 92, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 1 Aug 95, w/atchs.
Exhibit I. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Oct 97.
Exhibit J. Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Feb 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit K. Letter, Applicant, dated 4 Mar 03, w/atchs.
PATRICIA D. VESTAL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-03562-2
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03562-2 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests his P0500A promotion recommendation form (PRF) be corrected to reflect a $166 million program versus an $80 million...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01548a
She received five (5) Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) in the grade of lieutenant colonel, in which the overall evaluations were “Meets Standards” and one (1) Referral OPR, closing 17 Feb 98, with the overall evaluation of “Does Not Meet Standards.” The applicant was relieved from active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel on 30 Jun 98, under the provisions of AFI 36-3203 (Voluntary Retirement), and retired on 1 Jul 98. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachment, is at...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Chief, Officer Promotion Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPOO states in regard to the applicant’s request to set aside the promotion nonselections by the CY93B and CY94A Central Major Selection Boards, that Title 10 clearly establishes that officers not selected for promotion are considered to have failed that promotion. The Secretary of the Air Force did not convene a selective continuation board associated with the CY94A Central Major...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00116 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1 Sep 96 through 1 Jul 97 be declared void and removed from his records. While the applicant provided statements from individuals outside the rating chain, we are not persuaded...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02718
A complete copy of the evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPEB states that in reference to the applicant’s assertion that the senior rater signed the PRF based on an incorrect officer performance report and without knowledge of several major career achievements, the senior rater could have included the accomplishments in the applicant’s original PRF without it being documented in the record of performance. The most significant documents provided for our review...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03562
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2002-03562 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His P0500A promotion recommendation form (PRF) be corrected to reflect a $166 million program versus an $80 million program; his completion of the USAF F-15E Instructor Upgrade Course be...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00702A
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00702 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he requests the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 1 February 1999 be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished report and he be considered for promotion...
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and, in a letter dated 14 April 1999, asserted the IG investigation was flawed because the rater never discussed any reported complaints during her performance feedback session five months before the IG investigation. After a thorough review of the evidence 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,...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03586A
If his request is approved, he also requests that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C Lieutenant Colonel Board. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After careful consideration of the additional statement provided by the rater on the contested report, we are not convinced that the report is an inaccurate assessment of the applicant’s duty...