Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01791
Original file (BC-2003-01791.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-01791
                       INDEX CODE:  111.00 & 131.00
                       COUNSEL:  NONE

                       HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive promotion consideration by a Special Selection Board  (SSB)
for the calendar year (CY) 2001B Lieutenant Colonel Central  Selection
Board (CSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was directed by  his  senior  rater  to  draft  his  own  Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF), which was  subsequently  submitted  to  the
CY01B lieutenant colonel CSB with minimal changes.  He  believes  this
was in violation of  AFI  36-2406  and  this  put  him  at  an  unfair
disadvantage before the Board.

Applicant's complete submission,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B and CY02B  selection  boards.   The
applicant was also considered for promotion by  the  CY03A  lieutenant
colonel CSB, however, the results have not been published.

Applicant’s OPR profile as a major is listed below.

                 PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

                  17 Oct 98       Meets Standards
                  17 Oct 99       Meets Standards
                  17 Oct 00       Meets Standards
                 *17 Oct 01       Meest Standards
                  17 Oct 02       Meets Standards
                   8 Apr 03       Meets Standards

*Top report at the time of the CY01B CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

HQ AFPC/DPPPE states the applicant has not provided any evidence as to
what actions he  took  to  inform  his  senior  rater  of  a  possible
violation of the AFI.  Nor  has  he  provided  any  evidence  of  what
actions he took to have his PRF changed prior to the convening of  the
board.  Furthermore, a PRF is considered  a  working  copy  until  the
start of the board and the senior rater has the  flexibility  to  make
changes to the PRF.  The applicant has not provided any  documentation
from his senior rater  or  from  the  management  level  review  board
president (MRLB) in support of his request for special selection board
consideration, nor has he provided a new PRF for consideration by  the
board.  Based on  the  evidence  provided,  AFPC/DPPE  recommends  the
applicant’s request be denied.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

HQ AFPC/DPPPO, reviewed this application and concurs with the findings
of DPPPE and does not support promotion consideration.  They recommend
denying the applicant’s request.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
3 October 2003, for review and response.  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 error or injustice to warrant promotion consideration
by a Special Selection Board (SSB).  After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and the applicant’s submission,  the  Board  agrees
with the opinions and recommendations of  the  Air  Force  and  adopts
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or  injustice.   Although  it  appears
that a violation of the AFI may have occurred, the applicant  has  not
provided nor offered any explanation of what actions he took to advise
his senior rated  of  this  violation.   The  July  2001,  e-mail  the
applicant submitted from a major in his unit requesting a draft PRF be
provided also advised him if there was a problem with this request the
applicant should contact him.  The  applicant  has  not  provided  any
evidence showing he contacted the major and discussed this issue  with
him.  Furthermore, he has not provide any  evidence  from  the  senior
rater stating that the PRF  was  in  error.   The  applicant  has  not
provided any supporting documentation from his  senior  rater  or  the
MLRB president as policy requires.  Nor, has the applicant provided  a
replacement for the contested  PRF.   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 RECOMMENDS 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2003-01791 in  Executive  Session  on  18  November  2003,  under  the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Ms. Brenda L. Romine, Panel Chair
                       Mr. Christopher Carey, Member
                       Mr. Michael J. Maglio, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 8 May 03, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Officer Selection Brief.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPE, dated 2 Jul 03.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 26 Sep 03.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 3 Oct 03.




                             BRENDA L. ROMINE
                             Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03654

    Original file (BC-2003-03654.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    This information was on his Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period ending 28 September 2000, which met the CY00A selection board. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO states they reviewed the findings in the HQ AFPC/DPPPE advisory and have nothing further to add. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02040

    Original file (BC-2002-02040.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant contends he did not receive his OSB in time to review it prior to the promotion board. A complete copy of applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPE asserts the applicant has not provided any...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00500

    Original file (BC-2004-00500.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPE notes the rater is simply letting the applicant know that her assessment was what she intended it to be at the time and she has no valid reason to change her assessment four years later. Exhibit F. Letter, Counsel, dated 7 May 04. JOE G. LINEBERGER Director Air Force Review Boards Agency AFBCMR BC-2004-00500 MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00715

    Original file (BC-2003-00715.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00715 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be replaced with a revised PRF and he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02389

    Original file (BC-2003-02389.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    His senior rater at the time was responsible for providing promotion recommendations to the selection board. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting correction to the applicant’s Officer Selection Brief (OSB) and Officer Selection Record (OSR) and Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. It is further recommended that the applicant’s corrected record be considered for...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02883

    Original file (BC-2001-02883.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02883 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Professional Military Education (PME) recommendations on his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 19 Mar 94 and 25 Nov 94, be changed from Intermediate Service School (ISS) to Senior Service School (SSS). The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01151

    Original file (BC-2002-01151.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS INDEX CODE 111.01 111.03 111.05 131.01 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01151 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period closing 24 Oct 98 be declared void, the Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-01425

    Original file (BC-2004-01425.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    However, Air Force policy does not allow for decorations with close out dates or approval dates after the convening of the board to be filed in a member’s record. In addition, because of the closeout date of his MSM (2OLC) (7 August 2003), there is no basis to favorably consider his request for consideration of this award by the CY02B and CY03A lieutenant colonel selection boards. Finally, since there is no indication in the available evidence that the applicant’s record of performance...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02135

    Original file (BC-2007-02135.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although the applicant did not receive a copy of the correct PRF prior to the CSB the senior rater was contacted upon notification of this error and the senior rater has stated that the PRF was changed which was the senior rater intent to do and the incorrect copy was inadvertently given to the applicant. Once the error was discovered the applicant has had a chance to discuss with the senior rater; however, the senior rater stated the PRF which met the CY06C Lieutenant Colonel CSB was the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00472

    Original file (BC-2003-00472.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reiterated the applicant's contentions, provided a summary of the applicant's career and states in order for a performance report to serve its intended purpose it must correctly reflect a member's performance history. The content of an OPR based on an administrative error, that does not accurately reflect the time period during which the...