RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00260
INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 23 AUGUST 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration with a corrected AF
Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) which met the CY01B Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The promotion recommendation and narrative section of his PRF were produced
by a biased review panel held at his unit of assignment in which he and
other officers did not have a fair and equal representation. This not only
led to the perception of a mini-board at the senior rater level, but
additionally, most of the colonels on the review group were not in his
chain-of-command. In February 2002, he submitted an Inspector General (IG)
complaint against the commander regarding the process he used to determine
promotion recommendations. The IG stated that the manner in which the
group carried out its assigned review was in accordance with the governing
AFI and there was insufficient information for further investigation. The
PRF is the most important element in an officer’s selection record when
meeting a promotion board. He firmly believes his career progression was
halted by a biased DP-award process.
In support of his request applicant provides a personal statement; a copy
of the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board Results with associated
correspondence and copies of correspondence from the Senior Official
Inquiries Inspector General’s Office. The applicant’s submission, with
attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date as 28
May 1986. He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major,
with a date of rank of 1 January 1998.
The applicant’s OSB contains AF Forms 707B, Officer Performance Reports
(OPRs) beginning with the rating period 18 June 1998 and ending on 8 April
2004 with overall ratings of “Meets Standards.” The applicant currently
has an established date of separation (DOS) of 31 May 2006.
The applicant has four nonselections to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
the CY01B (5 Nov 01) (P0501B); CY02B (12 Nov 02) (P0502B); CY03A (8 Jul 03)
(P0503A); and CY04B (12 Jul 04) (P0504A) lieutenant colonel CSBs.
Applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401,
Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports.
Pursuant to a Inspector General (IG) complaint filed by the applicant
containing an allegation that his commander wrongfully violated AFI 36-
2401, para 8.1.4.1.4, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, by holding
an improper promotion screening board to determine Definitely Promote (DP)
Recommendation allocations for the CY 2001B Lieutenant Colonel Promotion
Board. A complaint analysis was conducted by an investigating officer (IO)
appointed by the Office of the Inspector General, Senior Official
Inquiries. In a report approved by the Inspector General on 25 March 2002,
the IO concluded that the applicant’s allegation did not warrant further
investigation. The IO did not find prima facie evidence that the commander
wrongfully violated AFI 36-2401, by holding an improper promotion screening
board to determine DP recommendation allocations for the CY2001B Lieutenant
Colonel Promotion board and that, as the senior rater, the commander alone
made that determination.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPEB recommends the application be denied. DPPPE states that the
Office of the Inspector General, Senior Official Inquiries Branch,
concluded that the available evidence did not indicate any wrongdoing or
misconduct. Therefore, DPPPE states there is no basis for SSB
consideration. The DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states that the advisory does not explain why the PRF process
was not in violation of AFI 36-2406. He firmly believes that officers who
had direct representation by the group of colonels at Maxwell AFB had an
advantage over those officers without representation. The applicant
believes that the AFPC/DPPPEB statement regarding his subsequent
nonselections were an attempt to suggest that his primary non-selection to
lieutenant colonel was validated by subsequent promotion boards. He finds
the inclusion of this information not relevant to his appeal. The
applicant’s letter is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
USAF/JAA recommends the application be denied. JAA states the applicant
did not provide evidence that his or any other officer’s PRF was scored,
rated, ranked, or tallied in violation of AFI 36-2406. In addition, JAA
states the applicant did not meet the burden of providing sufficient
evidence of any connection or bias by the group review and its actions and
the award of DP promotion recommendations for officers assigned to Maxwell
Air Force Base. The USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant disagrees with the JAA evaluation and believes he has shown that
supervisors not in his chain-of-command had influence on his PRF. He
provided data and statistics that clearly showed a disparity in the “DP”
recommendations awarded. The applicant’s letter is at Exhibit H.
_________________________________________________________________
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. After reviewing the evidence of record,
we are not persuaded that the applicant has been the victim of an error or
injustice. We note the applicant’s contention that the promotion
recommendation and narrative section of his Promotion Recommendation Form
(PRF) was written by a biased review panel; however, other than his own
assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant that would lead us to
believe the contested PRF is technically flawed or the information in the
report, as prepared, was based on inappropriate factors or matters other
than the applicant’s duty performance. The applicant’s complaints were
investigated by the Air Force Inspector General’s Office and it was
determined the allegations did not warrant further investigation. Other
than his own assertions, the applicant has provided no evidence that was
unavailable during the investigation of his complaint or lead us to believe
the approved findings of the Investigation Officer were flawed. In view of
the above, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the basis
for our decision to not favorably consider the applicant’s request.
_________________________________________________________________
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 this application, AFBCMR
Docket No. 01-03283, in Executive Session on 19 July 2005 and 12 October
2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman III, Member
Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 11 Jan 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records and
SAF/IGS Senior Official Complaint Analysis
(withdrawn).
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 4 May 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 11 Mar 05.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 22 Mar 05.
Exhibit F. Letter, USAF/JAA, dated 22 Jul 05.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Aug 05.
Exhibit H. Letter, Applicant, dated 26 Aug 05.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02184 INDEX CODE: 131.09, 131.10 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His P0598B promotion recommendation form (PRF) be corrected to reflect "Definitely Promote" and his records with the new PRF be considered by a special selection board (SSB) for promotion to lieutenant colonel. In support of...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00066
As a further alternative, her record be referred to a Supplemental Management Level Review (SMLR) for “DP” consideration and include her 1 February 2006 Officer Performance Report (OPR) and the contents of her appeal case, that she be granted SSB consideration by the P0506A Non-Line CSB with the re-accomplished PRF reflecting a “DP” recommendation, and, if selected for promotion, be promoted with the appropriate effective date and corresponding back pay and allowances. Additionally, rather...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit K. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and states that although the applicant has provided support from the senior rater, she provide no support from the MLR president to warrant upgrading the PRF. After reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s records are either in error or unjust. The...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02859
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant asserts that while there is no requirement for rating chains to include PME or command comments, absence of these comments was intentionally made to exclude him from promotion. Further, he believes this alleged bias against him caused the rater and additional rater to omit PME and command recommendations on the...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01251
He has suffered an injustice because had his records been complete at the time the PRF was prepared, he would have received a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation from his senior rater. AFPC/DPPPE contends that the applicant’s senior rater did review accurate information within the applicant’s record at the time the CY99B PRF was completed. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
The applicant received a "Promote" recommendation on the PRF prepared for the CY92A Col Board. On 13 December 1993, the applicant filed an Inspector General (IG) complaint alleging that the former Air Force Intelligence Command Commander (AFIC/CC) convened a board to 'rack and stack" officers eligible for promotion to be considered by the CY92A Col Board and then used the priority list to award "Definitely Promote (DP) " recommendations in violation of the governing regulation. ...
He still maintains that his senior rater did not give him a strong enough push for a DP at the MLR and that the OPR closing out 17 Jun 97 (originally 5 Aug 97) generated by a Change of Reporting Official was delayed due to rating chain mismanagement and inattentiveness. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request for a direct promotion. While we understand that the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00614
Examiner’s Note: In a letter, dated 23 April 2002, SAF/IGQ indicated that, “In accordance with Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records Decision, 0200614, dated 13 Mar 02, the Air Force Inspector General’s office completed expunging the IG record of the May/June 2000 investigation concerning [the applicant].” However, the AFBCMR had never rendered a decision on the applicant’s request to expunge the USAFE/IG investigation. The AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02036
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02036 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS: Direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, with a retroactive date of rank as if selected by the CY00A (28 November 2000) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB), and with a Definitely Promote (DP)...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03876
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-03876 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears that the applicant is requesting the Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the periods 11 March 1997 to 10 March 1998 and 11 March 1998 to 10 March 1999, and the P0600A Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), be declared void and...