Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02185
Original file (BC-2003-02185.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  2003-02185
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for a position vacancy (PV) promotion by a  Special  Review
Board (SRB) for the Fiscal Year 2004A  (FY04A)  Reserve  of  the  Air  Force
(ResAF) Major PV Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

HQ ARPC received the promotion recommendation package on the due date of  20
December 2002, 45 days prior to the  board  convening  date  of  3  February
2003.  Unfortunately,  ARPC/DPBA  did  not  receive  the  package  from  the
distribution  center  until  24 February  2003;  therefore,   he   was   not
considered for promotion.

In support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  letter  from  his
commander dated 19 June 2003, AF Form 709 - Promotion  Recommendation  Form,
and other documentation.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in the grade  of
captain.

The applicant was nominated for consideration by the FY04  Line  and  Health
Professions Major Position Vacancy (PV) Selection Board, which  convened  on
3 February 2003.

The applicant met the time-in-grade requirements  specified  (four-years  in
grade by 30 September 2003) for the FY04 Major PV  Board;  however,  he  had
not completed the appropriate professional  military  education  (PME).   He
was not considered for a PV promotion by the FY04 board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB strongly recommended denial.  They indicated that by the  applicant
not completing PME, he is ineligible  for  position  vacancy  consideration.
If he completes PME  and  meets  the  other  eligibility  requirements,  his
senior rater could nominate him at a later board.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 18 July 2003, a copy of the Air Force evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the
applicant for review and response within 30  days.   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 an  error  or  injustice.   Applicant’s  contentions  are  duly
noted; however, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, we  agree
with the opinion and  recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant  has  not  been
the victim of an error or injustice.  It  appears  that  in  order  for  the
applicant to be eligible for consideration for promotion by the  FY04  Major
PV Board, he was  required  to  have  completed  his  professional  military
education (PME).  According to HQ ARPC/SG requirements, the applicant, as  a
Health Professional officer must complete the appropriate level of  PME,  in
this case, Squadron Officer School, before he can be  considered  for  a  PV
promotion.  The letter from the senior rater is duly noted;  however,  while
the applicant met the specific time-in-grade requirement for  promotion,  he
apparently rendered himself ineligible for PV consideration because  of  not
completing  all  the  eligibility  requirements.   The  applicant  has   not
presented  evidence  that  he  was  unaware  of  the  promotion  eligibility
criteria.  As noted by  HQ  ARPC,  once  the  applicant  completes  his  PME
requirement  and  meets  all  other  eligibility  requirements,  he  may  be
nominated by his senior rater for a PV promotion.   In  view  of  the  above
finding, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief
sought.

_________________________________________________________________




THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of an 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-
02185 in Executive Session on 4 September 2003 under the provisions  of  AFI
36-2603:

                 Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Panel Chair
                 Ms. Nancy Wells Drury, Member
                 Mr. Robert H. Altman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 June 2003, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Available Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 14 July 2003.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 July 2003.





                                   PATRICIA D. VESTAL
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03190

    Original file (BC-2004-03190.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommends denial and states consideration for the Major PV Selection Board is based on the receipt of the AF Form 709. The applicant’s senior rater, the sole nomination authority for the PV Selection Board, has not submitted documentation to support either an original nomination, or express support for the appeal request. The original packet was completed and submitted to the MPF on time.

  • 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 | 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-2003-01058

    Original file (BC-2003-01058.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Due to a system failure to notify his wing of his promotion eligibility, a Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) was not staffed and forwarded to ARPC prior to the 20 Dec 02 deadline. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that he meets the eligibility requirements for promotion consideration by the FY04 PV board. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102181

    Original file (0102181.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In regards to the additional PME requirement, the applicant states that the policy was not in effect at the time of her promotion board and she should not be evaluated against a higher standard than her peers meeting the same board. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include the attached Promotion Recommendation Form, AF Form 709, be considered...

  • 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 | CY2004 | BC-2004-01688

    Original file (BC-2004-01688.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The 624 RSG commander provides a supporting statement confirming she did submit the applicant for promotion but discovered, after the board results were released, that the package was never forwarded from 624 RSG/DPM to HQ ARPC. The applicant was date-of-rank (DOR) eligible for consideration by the FY05 Major PV selection board, but his name did not appear on the list of officers considered by this board. OLGA M. CRERAR Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2004-01688 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2001 | 0102140

    Original file (0102140.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    It was not until the day the FY02 board convened that the senior rater was contacted directly by ARPC and notified that a memorandum had been required designating her as the “primary” to AF/XO position 39574. The Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that her ineligibility for a PV promotion was due to the 11th Wing not revising the Unit Manning Document (UMD)...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02866

    Original file (BC-2002-02866.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating that as a result of administrative corrections to his position, he now has all the requirements to meet a position vacancy board: time in grade, a valid lieutenant colonel position, and the intent to nominate. Based on the assumption that...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00791

    Original file (BC-2004-00791.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) did not reach the Selection Board Secretariat in time to be considered for promotion by the U0405A board. The applicant provided a letter from his senior rater dated 2 Feb 04 explaining why the PRF was prepared and submitted late. We find no evidence of an error in this case and after a thorough review of the applicant’s submission, we do not believe he has...