Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1999-02295A
Original file (BC-1999-02295A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                                 ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1999-02295

      XXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED: No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

In his request for reconsideration, applicant again requests that  his
Officer Effectiveness Report (OER), closing 9 Oct 87, be removed  from
his records.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 18 Apr 00, the AFBCMR  considered  and  denied  the  above  request
(Exhibit F).  In a letter dated 12 Jun 00 (Exhibit G),  the  applicant
requested reconsideration of his case.  In its response, dated 15  Aug
00 (Exhibit H), the Board advised the applicant that his  request  did
not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the  Board.   In  another
letter, dated 29 Aug 00 (Exhibit I),  the  applicant  again  requested
reconsideration of his case and was again advised by the  Board  in  a
letter dated 19 Sep 00 (Exhibit J) that his request did not  meet  the
criteria for reconsideration by the Board.  In a letter dated  18  Nov
00 (Exhibit K), the applicant advised the Board that new and  relevant
evidence pertinent to his case was not readily available.  However, he
expressed his belief that the Air Force had not treated him fairly and
his intent to continue and request removal  of  the  OER.   Since  the
applicant provided no new and relevant evidence, his request was filed
without action.  In a letter dated 5 Jul 03 (Exhibit L), the applicant
again requested the Board remove the OER closing 9  Oct  87  from  his
records.  As new evidence, the applicant provided  copies  of  letters
from his rating chain written in response to his request to remove the
contested OER.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

After again reviewing the complete evidence  of  record,  we  are  not
persuaded that the applicant has  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or
injustice.  We note that  although  the  applicant  has  provided  new
evidence in the form of statements from his rating chain, none of  his
rating chain supported the applicant’s  request  to  remove  the  OER.
Aside from these statements, the Board has previously  considered  the
other arguments made by the applicant.  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 2 December 2003 under the provisions of  AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
      Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit F.  Record of Proceedings, dated 22 May 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Jun 00.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Aug 00.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Aug 00.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Sep 00.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, Applicant, dated 18 Nov 00.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Jul 03, w/atchs.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair


Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1995-01626A

    Original file (BC-1995-01626A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1995-01626 INDEX CODE 111.01 111.05 COUNSEL: HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In his request for reconsideration, the applicant asks that he be informed by letter if his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) for the period 21 Oct 72 through 31 Aug 73 is...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9305363

    Original file (9305363.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A summary of the evidence considered by the Board and the rationale for it’s decision is set forth in the Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings at Exhibit D. APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Significant new evidence provided by the two former Numbered Air Force Commanders provides strong support for his request to add the indorsement of General K---- to the June 1986 OER and the indorsement of General R---- to the May 1987 OER. In preparing the applicant’s 2 Jun 86 Officer Effectiveness...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-1991-01818-2

    Original file (BC-1991-01818-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition to the above requests which were previously considered and denied by the Board, the applicant also requested that his duty title of Commander, Headquarters Squadron Section, be voided from his records. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPASBG recommends denial noting that duty titles are determined by base leadership at the squadron, group and wing levels, and they do not believe his duty title should be changed from...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01793A

    Original file (BC-2002-01793A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01793 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: None XXX-XX-XXXX HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: In the applicant’s request for reconsideration, he provides four letters of character reference in support of the following original requests: a. A majority of the Board finds that the commander acted completely...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01793B

    Original file (BC-2002-01793B.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the Board finds insufficient evidence of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. Ms. Graham voted to grant the applicant’s requests and has attached a minority report at Exhibit R. The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit M. Addendum Record of Proceedings, dated 28 Jan 03, w/atchs. A majority found that applicant had not provided sufficient...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1991 | BC 1991 01818

    Original file (BC 1991 01818.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Reconsideration of Board’s previous decision for his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) closing 17 Apr 87 be declared void and removed from his records. The Air Force Military Personnel Center (AFMPC) approved the removal of his duty title, “Director of Family Support Center” in March 1987; however, a delay in its removal until 17 Mar 88 caused his OSR that met the 15 Jun 87 SSB and another 1987 regular promotion selection board held on 25 Nov 87 to be inaccurate. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1988-02856A

    Original file (BC-1988-02856A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant further states that if the Board does not find direct promotion appropriate, she then asks for SSB consideration for the 1994 through 1997 promotion boards based on the Berkley v. US court decision, which addressed a section of the Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) that was presented to the selection boards. After reviewing the prior Board decisions and the additional documentation provided, we still are not persuaded that the applicant has been denied fair and equitable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1995-01061A

    Original file (BC-1995-01061A.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant further states that if the Board does not find direct promotion appropriate, she then asks for SSB consideration for the 1994 through 1997 promotion boards based on the Berkley v. US court decision, which addressed a section of the Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) that was presented to the selection boards. After reviewing the prior Board decisions and the additional documentation provided, we still are not persuaded that the applicant has been denied fair and equitable...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2000 | 9602277

    Original file (9602277.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    In an application, dated 5 August 1996, the applicant requested promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, correction of the OSB for the CY93A Lt Col Board to reflect additional awards and an additional duty title, that the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 12 August 1993, be removed from his records and substituted with a reaccomplished report; consideration for promotion by Special Selection Board (SSB) if retroactive promotion was denied; set aside of his nonselections for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1994-00134B

    Original file (BC-1994-00134B.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    SECOND ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 94-00134 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE On 22 May 1991, the Board considered applicant's 20 June 1990 application requesting his officer effectiveness report (OER), closing 31 May 1986, be removed from his records, he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration, and his senior...