RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-00954
INDEX CODE:
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be considered by Special Selection Board for promotion to the grade
of major general (08) by the CY02 and CY03 AF Reserve General Officer
(GO) Vacancy Selection Boards.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Both GO Boards failed to value the endorsement of a civilian four-star
equivalent, thereby scoring other records with GO endorsements much
higher. He states that, historically, no one has ever been promoted
in the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF), Manpower and Reserve
Affairs, Mobilization Assistant (MA) position. He contends the Board
members inappropriately did not value outreach and diversity advocacy
causing his record to be scored lower than others who did not have
those types of comments in their records. Finally, he contends MG T,
10th AF/CC and a CY02 Board member, should have recused himself from
the CY02 Board as the applicant and another BG meeting that Board were
working on an informal equal opportunity (EO) complaint just before
and during said Board. Applicant states it is possible that MG T
could have employed retribution in scoring his and the other BG’s
record as well as influencing his fellow Board members negatively.
In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided copies of several
AF Form’s 78, Air Force General Officer Promotion Recommendation, from
1 December 2000 to 30 June 2004.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, a former member of the Air Force Reserve, met the
Calendar Year 2002 (CY02) and CY03 AF Reserve General Officer (GO)
Vacancy Selection Boards for consideration of promotion to the grade
of major general. He was not selected for promotion by either board.
Consequently, on 31 July 2004, he was assigned to the Retired Reserve
Section and placed on the USAF Reserve Retired List awaiting Reserve
retired pay at age 60.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFSLMO/AC recommends denial. AC notes Board members consider
selection of promotees on a best-qualified basis of the eligible
officers judged fully qualified for promotion. Such factors as duty
performance, breadth of experience, intellectual leadership, joint
duty experience, contributions to Global Engagement and Total Force
concepts and operations, and contributions to the development,
transition into, and the implementation of the Expeditionary Aerospace
Force concept, promotion recommendations, command experience,
officership, professional military and civilian education and any
other facet of the record to include, when required, experience in a
unique skill. No one factor was the sole determinate for selection.
AC states Board members were not subject to or aware of any censure,
reprimand, or admonishment about the recommendations of the Board;
were not subject to or aware of any attempt to coerce or influence
improperly any action in the formulation of their recommendations;
were not party to or aware of any attempt at unauthorized
communications to the Board. Board members took an oath where they
swore or affirmed to perform their duties as Board members without
prejudice or partiality and to the best of their knowledge, complied
with the law, applicable regulations and instructions from the SECAF.
AC’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 6
May 2005 for review and comment 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 error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded
that his uncorroborated assertions of selection Board bias and non
appreciation of endorsements and diversity advocacy, in and by
themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided
by the Air Force. Therefore, we agree with the opinion and
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and
adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision that the applicant
has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or
injustice. Therefore, in the absence of persuasive 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
2005-00954 in Executive Session on 19 July 2005, under the provisions
of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
Ms. Patricia R. Collins, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Mar 04, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFSLMO/AC, dated 5 May 05.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 May 05.
JOHN B. HENNESSEY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00977
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-00977 INDEX CODE: 131.09 XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 24 SEP 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be promoted to the rank of Major General (O-8) retroactive to 1 Jun 03. The HQ AF/DPG complete evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-01421
In support of his application, the applicant’s counsel provides a statement, two supporting statements from a retired chaplain, and documentation concerning selection of board membership. DPPB disagrees with the applicant’s contention that “control of board membership is potentially control of promotions.” DPPB states that internal procedures used by functional managers to determine board membership have no bearing on the outcome of promotion boards, so long as the board membership is in...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03425
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03425 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: EUGENE R FIDELL XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: MAY 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of colonel for the Calendar Year 2000A for the Medical Corps Central Colonel Selection Board using the...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01073
Applicant states, in part, that he advised the South Carolina Adjutant General (SC AG) of an attempt by another officer in the SC ANG to subvert the AG’s express wishes by having himself (the other officer) assigned to the COS position in the SC ANG; he was asked by the AG to document, by memorandum, the conversation between the two, which he did; the memorandum “found its way to others” and he subsequently became the focus of an AF/IG investigation that eventually found that he had...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01871
Two of the members of a three-person ethics panel appointed to conduct an ethics review on him had already prejudged the case and/or had an obvious interest in supporting the IG’s conclusions. They also provide responses to each of the allegations made by the applicant. Again, other than his assertion, the applicant has not provided evidence to support this allegation.
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04795
Her record be corrected to reflect that she was selected for the position of Director, Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Management Office (REAMO) effective Jan 09. As to a violation of Title 10 USC 1034b, the applicant appears to have the opinion that she was the only qualified applicant and would have been selected but for reprisal by the Deputy AF/RE substantiated in the SAF/IGS ROI. AF/JAA states that the applicant was not the only AGR who was the top candidate for the Director, REAMO...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087561C070212
The Commander, PERSCOM, will determine if a material error existed in a soldier's record when the file was reviewed by the selection board. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly considered for promotion to MSG by the CY01 and CY02 AGR MSG/SGM Selection Board but was not selected. BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00758
The applicant did not file an appeal under the provisions of Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. His records were presented to a panel of three line general officers and two chaplain colonels along with 13 other officers from different Management Levels across the Air Force. It appears to the Board that the records presented before the promotion board were reviewed based on the applicant’s entire selection record.
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02992
In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a letter from the 701 MDS/CC certifying his outstanding performance as a member of the unit, two personal statements, a letter supporting the DOR change from the 10 AMDS/CC and endorsed by the 10 MDG/CC, a draft PRF that was not signed or submitted to the AFRES CSB, an endorsement letter from AFRESL/MLL, a vMPF RIP showing DOR timeline, an Education vMPF RIP, an FY03 AFRES Line and Health Professions Captain Select List, a AFRES Change to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130010393
The applicant requests correction of his military records by adjusting his promotion dates for brigadier general (BG) to on or about 30 July 2009 and for major general (MG) to on or about 7 August 2011. At the time of his application, the applicant was serving as TAG for the State of Maryland. The applicant contends, in effect, that his military records should be corrected by adjusting his promotion dates for BG to on or about 30 July 2009 and to MG to on or about 7 August 2011.