Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01179
Original file (BC-2005-01179.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2005-01179

      XXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXXXXXX    HEARING DESIRED:  YES

MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  21 OCT 06

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) prepared on him for the FY04 and
FY05 Major Line and Health Professions Promotion Boards be  corrected
to reflect accurate information in the Assignment History.

He be considered for promotion to  the  grade  of  major  by  special
selection board (SSB) for the FY04 and FY05  Major  Line  and  Health
Professions Promotion Boards.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He did not receive an  Officer  Preselection  Brief  (OPB)  from  his
Military Personnel  Flight  (MPF)  for  either  board.   His  officer
performance report (OPR) contained the wrong rank and was written  on
the wrong form. The AFSC and command level was incorrect on his OPB.

In support of his application, applicant submits a personal statement
and a copy of his OPR for the period 17 Jul 01 thru  16  Jul  02,  an
email from 375 MSS/DPMR,  a  copy  of  his  OPB  and  an  email  from
TACC/XOC.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty  in  the
grade of captain.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the  grade
of major by the FY04 and  FY05  Line  and  Health  Professions  Major
Selection Boards.

_________________________________________________________________


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

ARPC/DPB recommends denial and stated the applicant’s OPR closing  16
July 2002 was administratively corrected by ARPC/DPBR2 to reflect the
grade of captain prior to the board review.  The  fact  the  OPR  was
prepared using an incorrect version of the form does not  change  the
content of the report.

DPB states it is the applicant’s responsibility to  monitor  his  own
eligibility and ensure his selection folder is up to  date  prior  to
the board. Due diligence on the officer’s part would have  eliminated
any question in his mind concerning nonselection based on “errors” in
his record. At this time the applicant has failed to provide proof of
any errors.

ARPC/DPB complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated he would  like
to appeal to common sense. Why wouldn’t he be interested  in  helping
himself get promoted? He obviously needs a  little  guidance  in  the
process. His last promotion came automatically via unit vacancy  with
a secretary stopping him in the hall to tell him about it. If he  had
gotten a call, email, letter  or  anything  from  anyone  wanting  to
assist him in getting ready for these boards, he would have jumped on
it. Where was his active duty command structure? How  about  the  IMA
staff? How about the MPF? Is it really true  that  the  members  must
handle the entire process themselves? Is that  only  true  for  IMAs?
Does the active duty take better care of their personnel than the IMA
system? He is not being flip-he is really perplexed.  He  sure  hopes
the old joke about IMA meaning “I’m alone” is not true. Unfortunately
this experience has definitely left him feeling alone.  He stands  by
the comment of his “Promotion Experience”  document  he  has  already
submitted. He has spoken with numerous senior officers including  Gen
P__ and he acknowledges that he has not been treated  fairly.  He  is
not interested in the “blame game”; he simply wants a fair shake.  He
also wants to make sure any other IMA is not affected  in  a  similar
fashion

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E

_________________________________________________________________

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, the Board is not convinced that the applicant  exercised  due
diligence in having his record up-to-date prior to the  convening  of
the selection  boards  in  question.  The  applicant  must  bear  the
responsibility  to  monitor  his  own  eligibility  and  ensure   the
selection folder  is  up-to-date  and  correct  prior  to  the  board
convening  date.   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  conclusion  that  the
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.
Consequently, 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   issues   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-2005-
01179 in Executive Session on 7 July 2005, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. James W. Russell III, Member
      Ms. Sue A. Lumpkins, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Apr 05, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated 25 Apr 05.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Apr 05.
    Exhibit E.  Applicant Response, dated 4 May 05, w/atchs.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01935

    Original file (BC-2005-01935.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01935 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: GUY J. FERRANTE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 Dec 06 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of major by the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Line and Health Professions Major Promotion Selection...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01622

    Original file (BC-2002-01622.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    All LEAD officers display the current PAS of assignment (which is active duty), the file from which the data is obtained (“BA” meaning active duty officer), an identifier showing “AGR” (also indicating full-time active duty), and 239 active duty training points in the current retirement/retention (R/R) year (“PT SINCE: 13 Feb 01” at the bottom of the OSB). In addition, after reviewing the applicant’s OPRs, we noted that the assignment history section of the contested OSB contains...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03485

    Original file (BC-2005-03485.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03485 INDEX CODE: 131.01, 107.00 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 MAY 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be corrected to show he was not considered for promotion by the FY06 Line and Health Professions Major Selection Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00088

    Original file (BC-2005-00088.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 1 April 2004, the AFBCMR considered and, by a majority vote, recommended approval of applicant's request for removal of the OPR, closing 10 February 2002, LOCs, LOA, UIF, and all references thereto, from his records and SSB consideration, with his corrected record. As to the Board’s previous decision, DPB indicates that HQ ARPC complied (all available references to the LOC, LOA, UIF and the OPR were removed from the applicant’s record), and awarded SSB in lieu of the FY03 and FY04 Line...

  • 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-2003-00171

    Original file (BC-2003-00171.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Since 1990, the applicant has successfully been promoted to the grade of captain (where the missing OPR would have been the second OPR from the top) and to major (the missing OPR would have been the seventh from the top). According to ARPC/DPB, selection boards must use the “whole person” concept to arrive at a decision for promotability of any officer. A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02075

    Original file (BC-2003-02075.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02075 INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the FY04 Line and Health Professions Major Position Vacancy Selection Board, with her Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 16...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00349

    Original file (BC-2005-00349.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    All officers selected for promotion by this board were promoted no earlier than this date, unless a request for accelerated promotion was received from the senior rater. The applicant provides another memo from the commander to the senior rater, also dated 20 Jul 04, requesting the applicant be given an accelerated promotion to major with a DOR of 15 Apr 04 (Exhibit A). The 2 Jun 04 DOR was not authorized because the FY04 board did not select the applicant.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | bc-2005-01550

    Original file (bc-2005-01550.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01550 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 10 SEPTEMBER 2006 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears he is requesting consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the FY05 United States Air Force Reserve...

  • 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. ...