RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01932
INDEX CODE: 102.07
xxxxxxxxxxxx COUNSEL: NONE
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 19 DEC 2006
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, for the period 27 May 1999
through 26 May 2000, be removed from her records and the Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) be removed from the 10 benchmark records and she
be considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board (SSB) by the CY02B
Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB).
2. She be given SSB consideration by the CY04J Lieutenant Colonel Central
Selection Board with inclusion of a letter she wrote to the original board;
her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected to reflect her five-month
deployment in 2003 to the CENTCOM AOR and removal of AF Form 77 closing 26
May 2000, from her Officer Selection Record (OSR) and the corresponding
OPRs for the same rating period from all of the benchmark records for the
purpose of SSB consideration.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The OPR covering the period 27 May 1999 through 26 May 2000 was removed
from her records and replaced by an Air Force Form 77. Her records then
met an SSB and she believes the AF Form 77 served as a red flag telling the
Board members which individual had requested supplemental promotion
consideration and the AF Form 77 does not explain why the OPR was removed.
She believes the current SSB process allows this act of discrimination to
be perpetuated.
She wrote a letter to the CYO4C Selection Board and requested it be
considered along with her records. She was assured the letter would be
included in her records; however a review of her records revealed the
letter was not included.
The “Overseas Duty History” section does not reflect her five-month
deployment in 2003 to the CENTCOM AOR.
Her promotion record that met the CY2004 selection board contained the AF
Form 77 for the period 27 May 1999 to 26 May 2000. She believes that
replacing the OPR with the AF Form 77 had a negative impact on her
promotion record.
In support of her request, the applicant submitted two personal statements,
a copy of AF Form 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Report, Background
Information of ERAB Appeal, a copy of a Letter to the Board President, AF
Form 77, covering the period 19 June 2003 through 21 November 2003, a copy
of her Air Force Officer Selection Brief (OSB), and copies of her OPRs and
awards.
Her complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The 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 CY02B and the CY04J Lieutenant Colonel Central
Selection Boards. She was also considered and not selected for promotion
by the CY02B SSB.
Applicant’s OPR profile is listed below.
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
26 May 98 Meets Standards
26 May 99 Meets Standards
26 May 00 Not Rated (Removed by ERAB)
26 May 01 Meets Standards
#26 May 02 Meets Standards
26 May 03 Meets Standards
## 7 May 04 Meets Standards
#- Top Report on file at time of the CY02B selection board.
##- Top Report on file at time of the CY04J selection board.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPB recommends denial. DPPB states the Air Force has no precedence
for puling AF Forms 77 or evaluations from benchmark records for promotion
consideration. DPPB states that removing the documents from the
applicant’s record, the benchmark records, and any other considerees
meeting the SSB will set a dangerous precedence. The documentation helps
board members calibrate to the environment for that particular year group
and time frame.
According to DPPB, no foundation exists for the applicant’s claim that she
was not fairly considered by the evaluation boards.
The DPPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB
consideration. DPPPO states the applicant’s contention that her letter to
the CY04J board was not present in her OSR is unsubstantiated. DPPPO
retrieved a copy of the letter from her OSR and found that the sequence
number (030040) reflected on the applicant’s OSB matches the hand-written
sequence number on the right hand corner of the board letter, indicating it
was filed in her OSR for that board. As such, SSB consideration is not
warranted since the letter to the board (with no attachments) communicated
to the board members her nomination for the Defense Meritorious Service
Medal (DMSM) covering her five-month deployment to the CENTCOM AOR in 2003.
The applicant contends the overseas duty history section on her OSB did
not reflect her five-month deployment in 2003 to the CENTCOM AOR. However,
Military Personnel Flight Memorandum (MPFM) 04-28, dated 12 July 2004,
clearly states that TDYs after 4 January 1995 will not be reflected under
the overseas duty history unless they resulted in award of a short or long
tour IAW AFI 36-2110, table 3.5. All TDYs are listed under a member’s TDY
history file in the military personnel data system (MilPDS).
DPPPO further states, as mentioned above, the applicant’s letter to the
board was filed in her OSR for the CY04J board; therefore, the board
members were aware of her five-month deployment in 2003 to the CENTCOM AOR.
The DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.
AFPC/JA recommends denial. JA states the handling of performance reports
removed from OSRs is governed by AFI 36-2406, Chapter 4, and AFI 36-2608,
Table A.2.1, Rule 23. IAW these instructions, the AF Form 77 is prescribed
as the approved method to document a missing evaluation report and/or to
cover a gap in performance reports in selection records. JA states, as
noted by AFPC/DPPB in its advisory, board members are also instructed on
the purpose of AF Form 77 and are told not to second guess the basis for
its being in the record. In the absence of evidence to the contrary (and
none has been presented here), they can presume that the board members at
applicant’s SSB properly followed those instructions.
According to JA, AFI 36-2501 is equally clear in setting forth special
selection board procedures. Those procedures were followed precisely in
the applicant’s contested SSB, and she has not met her burden of proving
that these procedures were illegal or unfair or were applied unfairly in
her case. In fact, the Air Force’s special selection board procedures were
fully upheld by the United States Court of Federal Claims in Haselrig v.
United States, 53 Fed.C1. 111 (2002).
JA states the applicant has failed to establish an error or injustice in
the conduct of her CY02B SSB. Moreover, the fact that she has devised an
alternate means to conduct an SSB does not require its use by the Air Force
or otherwise invalidate the permissible procedures that were used.
The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 9
Sep 05, 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 an error or injustice. We took notice of the applicant’s
complete submission in judging the merits of the case. However, the Board
is not persuaded that the applicant was denied the opportunity to compete
successfully for promotion on a fair and equitable basis. In this regard,
we note that AFI 36-2501 is the authority for establishing procedures for
promotion selection boards and the applicant has not provided evidence that
the established procedures were applied improperly in her case. The Board
also notes, MPFM 04-28 dated 12 July 2004, clearly states that TYDs after
4 January 1995, will not be reflected under the overseas duty history
unless they resulted in award of a short or long tour. Since the
applicant’s TDY was for a period of five months and she was not awarded
credit for a short or long tour, the TDY was not required to be reflected
on her OSB. In regards to the applicant’s contention that her letter to
the CY04C selection board was not present in her OSR, evidence has been
presented that would lead the Board to be of the opinion a copy of the
letter was timely filed in her OSR and made available to the selection
board. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendations of the
Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as
the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
_________________________________________________________________
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-2005-01932
in Executive Session on 8 November 2005, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Ms. Kathleen F. Graham, Panel Chair
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 Jun 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 19 Aug 05.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 26 Aug 05.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 2 Sep 05.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Sep 05.
KATHLEEN F. GRAHAM
Panel Chair
No new evidence is provided for the Board to consider (see Exhibit C). AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be time-barred. A promotion recommendation, be it a DP or anything else, is just that, a recommendation.
Therefore, we recommend that her record, to include the “Definitely Promote” recommendation on the CY97C PRF, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by special selection board (SSB) for the CY97C Central Major Selection Board. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Promotion Recommendation, AF Form 709,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1998-03550-BC-1999-02039a
In a letter, dated 27 January 2003, she requests direct promotion to the grade of major, contending that the OPR closing 30 January 1997, was still in her records when she was considered for promotion by the SSB for the CY98B Major Selection Board, and that since the SSB system is arbitrary and capricious, she should be directly promoted to the grade of major. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00440
She submitted an application to the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records asking that these corrections be made to her OSB and she be granted SSB consideration. As this is the standard requirement for any board member, she asks the board to grant her another SSB where no promotion board member would have knowledge of matters outside her record. I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the recommendation of the Board members.
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 4EC 0 8 1998 IN THE MATTER OF: - 558-76-8013 -.. DOCKET NUMBER: 88-028 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES She be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel; or, that the AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, which replaced t w o voided Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), be altered to inform promotion boards of the reason for the removal of the reports. The applicant explains her promotion to the grade...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01591
Her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the CY02B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be corrected to reflect her correct Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) and that she receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the CY02B Selection Board. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: On 8 August 2003, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01917
Her corrected records be supplementally considered by supplemental Management Level Review (MLR) boards for the CY99B and CY00A selection boards. The DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant states that the 19 Aug 03 supplemental MLR for the CY00A board failed in that her record alone was sent to the MLR for a promotion recommendation. DPPPE asserts that substitution of the 1999...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01181
Applicant’s OSB for the CY02B board dated 4 November 2002 incorrectly shows the “M” prefix on her “Duty” AFSC under “Assignment History.” Further, applicant submitted copies of her Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) dated 23 July 2003 for the CY02B board which indicates a duty title on 4 February 2001 as “Ambulatory Procedures/Nurse Anesthetist Chief” which was not shown on her OSB when meeting the CY02B board. Based on AFPC/DPAMF2’s advisory and the evidence provided, they recommend SSB...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03542
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03542 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 21 May 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: She be afforded direct promotion to the grade of colonel retroactive to original date of rank (DOR), with pay by the Calendar Year 1997B (CY97B) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB), or...
(Exhibit D) The Air Force Management Level Review Recorder, AFPC/DPPPEB, recommended denial of applicant's request that his PRF for the CY91B lieutenant colonel board be upgraded to reflect a "Definitely Promote, " stating the applicant was unsuccessful in his request (to the Officer Personnel Records Review Board) to have the OPR closing 29 April 1991 removed; therefore, the PRF should stand. Noting applicant's argument that A i r Force promotion boards - violate 10 USC 616 and 617, JA...