RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03350
INDEX CODE: 131.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1997E (CY97E) Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Based on an earlier AFBCMR application he was considered by SSB for
promotion to lieutenant colonel and was not selected. The primary error
and injustice that occurred in his nonselection was the fact that his
former senior rater was a voting member of the SSB. In his earlier case,
his senior rater failed to include Professional Military Education (PME)
recommendations on the Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for all majors
and lieutenant colonels meeting In-the-Primary Zone (IPZ) boards in the
fall of 1997. The senior rater corrected the administrative error and all
the officers affected received SSB consideration for promotion. The other
two officers considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by SSB were
selected for promotion prior to his SSB being approved. The senior rater
was aware that they had been selected prior to serving on his SSB.
Accordingly, to the extent that either of their records were used as
comparatives at his SSB, the former senior rater knew that the other two
officers were not the consideree who had been granted that particular SSB.
His knowledge of this "inside information" that was not available to the
other board members, deprived him of a fair and impartial SSB panel and
constituted an administrative error and injustice. His presence as a
voting member violated the board instructions which state "Each of you...is
responsible to maintain the integrity and independence of this selection
board, and to foster the careful consideration, without prejudice or
partiality, of all eligible officers." Upon seeing the records of the
other two officers and along with his, he should have recused himself or at
least sought the advice from the board president.
In addition, the board instructions contain an illegal and constitutionally
impermissible instruction that gives unfair advantage to women and
minorities. Applicant is referring to the case of Berkley, et al., vs.
United States. The Court in this case determined that this instruction is
unconstitutional.
In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of the board member
list, his original PRF and corrected PRF, and a copy of the board member
instructions. Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
While serving on active duty, he was considered and not selected for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY97B, CY97E, and CY99A selection
boards. He was separated from active duty on 25 Oct 99 and is currently
serving in the Air Force Reserves in the grade of lieutenant colonel,
having assumed that grade with a date of rank of 1 Oct 01. He currently
has 23 years of satisfactory Federal service.
On 19 Jun 98, applicant submitted an appeal to the Board contending that
there were numerous errors on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB). His
records were corrected and on 19 May 99, he was provided SSB consideration
for the CY97B and CY97E lieutenant colonel selection boards and was not
selected.
Subsequent to his SSB nonselection, he submitted an additional appeal to
the Board requesting direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel,
contending that the composition of the board that originally considered him
violated statutory provisions by failing to consist of five or more voting
members on the active duty list and contending that an Officer Performance
Report in his record had a typewritten notation to advise readers that he
was previously promoted through the SSB process. His request was denied by
the Board.
In another appeal to the Board the applicant provided a corrected PRF and
requested that he be granted SSB consideration for the CY97E lieutenant
colonel selection board. He contended that his senior rater inadvertently
omitted PME attendance on the PRF. The Board granted his request and he was
considered and not selected by an SSB on 3 Dec 01.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPB recommends denial. DPPB states that the officer was qualified to
serve on the SSB and was administered the oath prescribed by 10 U.S.C. and
took no action to excuse himself from the board. In addition, DPPB states
that the verbiage in the instructions to his SSB has been modified and is
not the same as the verbiage in the Berkley case. The DPPB evaluation is
at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial. DPPPO states that applicant has provided no
proof to support his claim that the two other officers in his year group
were benchmark records considered by the board. Even if this were true, he
failed to establish how he was prejudiced in any way. The JAG career field
is small and it is not unusual for one or more board members at any given
SSB to know all or some of the considerees. This has never been considered
as a disqualifying factor. Moreover, the board members are required to
take an oath and are told that if at any time they believe they cannot in
good conscience perform their duties as a member of the board without
prejudice of partiality to request relief from their duty.
Beginning in 1998, the verbiage of the Memorandum of Instructions provided
to selection boards and SSBs was changed to delete the cited instruction.
Therefore, his request does not fall under the Berkley decision. The DPPPO
evaluation is at Exhibit D.
USAF/JAG recommends denial. JAG states that it was not a statutory
violation for the applicant's former senior rater to serve as an SSB
member. In fact, as a practical matter, it isn't unusual to have senior
raters, regardless of competitive category, serve as board members. Given
the relatively small size of the JAG competitive category the senior raters
seniority among 0-6 judge advocates, it was not only statutorily
permissible, but was entirely appropriate for him to serve as an SSB
member. The applicant's inference that his knowledge of the applicant's
identity as well and facts and circumstances of his case led to his
nonselection is pure speculation, unsupported by any evidence.
The revised Memorandum of Instruction was presented to the applicant's SSB
and did not create either a constitutionally objectionable classification
or benefits or burdens for competitors in the board process. He has
already received the benefit of the Berkley case by having been granted an
SSB that was conducted under the auspices of the revised instruction. The
JAG evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:
In the applicant's responds he reiterated his contentions and added that
the Air Force usually employs the "Consecutive Board" rule when assigning
senior officers to sit as voting members of promotion boards. This means
that the same senior officer may not sit on two consecutive promotion
boards considering the records of any given consideree. In the same spirit
of the "Consecutive Board" rule, his senior rater should have recused
himself. Although he did not sit on his previous board, he was so
intimately involved in his case that he had special background knowledge
that was not available, and rightly should not have been available, to the
other board members. His complete submission 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 are not
persuaded by his assertion that the presence of his former senior rater as
a voting member of the SSB panel, led to his denial of a fair opportunity
to compete successfully for promotion. In addition, we note that the
verbiage of the Memorandum of Instructions was changed in 1998, prior to
his consideration for promotion by SSB on 19 May 99. Therefore, we agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis for our conclusion
that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. In
the absence 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 issue(s) 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 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-2002-03350
in Executive Session on 6 May 03, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Vaughn Schlunz, Member
Ms. Mary J. Johnson, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Oct 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 23 Dec 02.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 16 Jan 03.
Exhibit E. Letter, USAF/JAG, dated 31 Jan 03.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Feb 03.
Exhibit G. Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Mar 03.
ROSCOE HINTON, JR.
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02209 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1997E (CY97E) Lieutenant Colonel Board (PO597E), which convened on 8 Dec 97, be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. There was...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03777
Inasmuch as the above corrections were accomplished subsequent to his consideration for promotion by the CY97B and CY97E Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, we recommend that the applicant’s corrected record be reviewed when he is considered for promotion by an SSB. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY 97B (2 June 1997) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and for any subsequent board for...
Inasmuch as the above corrections were accomplished subsequent to his consideration for promotion by the CY97B and CY97E Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, we recommend that the applicant’s corrected record be reviewed when he is considered for promotion by an SSB. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY 97B (2 June 1997) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and for any subsequent board for...
No new evidence is provided for the Board to consider (see Exhibit C). AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be time-barred. A promotion recommendation, be it a DP or anything else, is just that, a recommendation.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Selection Board Secretariat, HQ AFPC/DPPB, stated they disagree with counsel’s contention that the special selection board (SSB) process is unfair in that the use of benchmark records from the gray zone from the central board creates a higher standard for selection than that for the central board. ), he was otherwise competitive for promotion upon receiving the DP recommendation after his records...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2006-03185A
_________________________________________________________________ RESUME OF CASE: On 2 July 2007, the Board considered the applicant’s request that his DOR for promotion to the grade of major be adjusted to 1 January 1999, and he receive SSB consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, or in the alternative, that he be considered for promotion to the grade of major by an SSB using a modified selection process for the Calendar Year 1997E (P0497E) Major JAG CSB, and if...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01376 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 111.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY99B (P0599B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be replaced with the reaccomplished PRF provided. Although the incorrect statement was on the contested PRF, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00440
She submitted an application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records asking that these corrections be made to her OSB and she be granted SSB consideration. As this is the standard requirement for any board member, she asks the board to grant her another SSB where no promotion board member would have knowledge of matters outside her record. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01919
The HQ AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that he believes the inclusion in the MOI of the sentence, “In considering a DP recommendation, it is appropriate to consider the competitive circumstances under which the DP was awarded, as indicated on the PRF” violated the spirit of the SSB process. Based on the fact that...
(Exhibit D) The Air Force Management Level Review Recorder, AFPC/DPPPEB, recommended denial of applicant's request that his PRF for the CY91B lieutenant colonel board be upgraded to reflect a "Definitely Promote, " stating the applicant was unsuccessful in his request (to the Officer Personnel Records Review Board) to have the OPR closing 29 April 1991 removed; therefore, the PRF should stand. Noting applicant's argument that A i r Force promotion boards - violate 10 USC 616 and 617, JA...