THIRD ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1997-10007-
3
INDEX CODE: 131.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 1989A
(CY89A) Major Selection Board be declared void and removed from his
records, and he be afforded Special Selection Board (SSB)
consideration for the CY89A promotion board.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to the
grade of major by the CY89A board, which convened on 4 Dec 89, and the
CY91A board, which convened on 8 Jul 91. Both PRFs reflected overall
recommendations of “Promote.” As a result of his second nonselection,
the applicant was mandatorily retired for maximum years of service in
the grade of captain effective 1 May 92, after 20 years and 3 days of
active service.
Additional background information pertaining to the applicant’s
circumstances and contentions, and the previous Boards’ rationale for
denying his original case and two reconsiderations are summarized in
the Second Addendum to the Record of Proceedings (AROP) at Exhibit I.
In his latest request for reconsideration, the applicant makes
arguments similar to those in his earlier appeals and provides the
same documents as previously submitted, except for a statement from
his former group commander. In his statement, the former group
commander indicates the supervisor did not meet the suspense for a DP
recommendation for the applicant, and the document was poorly written
and did not reflect the applicant as one of the top junior officers in
the intelligence career field.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
J.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After reviewing the applicant’s latest submission, we remain
unconvinced that voiding the CY89A PRF and affording him SSB
consideration are warranted. As previously recorded, the Summary
Report of Inquiry (ROI) concluded the original senior rater
inappropriately used professional military education (PME) and
advanced academic education in his PRF decisions during the CY89A
cycle, but he did not convene a mini-board to make his promotion
recommendations or a meeting to prioritize his eligible officers. The
ROI also concluded the “Promote” recommendation on the applicant’s
CY91A PRF was not an act of reprisal. Further, an independent
designated senior rater and management level evaluation board (MLEB)
president were appointed to conduct a review of the CY89A process to
determine the validity of the original PRFs of all eligible officers.
By letter dated 9 Aug 96, the Air Education and Training Command
(AETC) Vice Commander advised the applicant that the recommendation
and narrative on his CY89A PRF were valid. The applicant’s latest
submission still has not overcome the findings of the ROI and the
designated senior rater. In this respect, the only new documentation
he provides is a statement from his former group commander. The
applicant had earlier contended, in part, that this group commander
had not forwarded a “Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendation because
of an allegedly strained relationship with the applicant’s supervisor.
Now the same group commander apparently blames the supervisor for
turning in a purportedly late, poorly written PRF that did not reflect
the applicant’s accomplishments and potential. That being the case, we
question why the group commander would not have acted responsibly at
the time to ensure the applicant’s PRF was accurate and met internal
administrative deadlines. In any event, the applicant’s arguments and
the group commander’s statement have not established the CY89A PRF was
an inaccurate assessment at the time it was rendered, nor have they
overcome the determinations of the ROI and the designated senior
rater. Accordingly, we conclude the applicant has failed to
demonstrate he has been the victim of an error or an injustice and
find no compelling reason to overturn the previous Board decisions
denying the relief sought.
The documentation provided with this case was sufficient to give the
Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a personal
appearance, with or without legal counsel, would not have materially
added to that understanding. 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 this application in
Executive Session on 21 September 2006 under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael K. Gallogly, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
The following documentary evidence relating to AFBCMR Docket Number BC-
1997-10007-3 was considered:
Exhibit I. Second AROP, dated 31 May 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit J. DD Form 149, dated 6 Jul 06, w/atchs.
MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-1996-10007A
[Examiner’s Note: A number of officers during this time frame had their performance records and PRFs reevaluated by independent senior raters and Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) presidents because of the original senior raters’ inappropriate use of PME and advanced academic education information. A copy of the Addendum ROP (AROP) is at Exhibit G. In a 10 Feb 05 appeal, the applicant requests reconsideration contending he would have been promoted if his squadron commander...
Therefore, his achievements for the last six months and the most significant ones in his entire Air Force career were not documented anywhere in his Record of Performance (ROP) reviewed by the rater, LTC ---, and the senior rater, Colonel ---, when they prepared his PRF. The applicant provides a letter from his senior rater dated four years after the 1989 Major Board. He recommends that the corrected PRF prepared by Colonel --- be entered into the applicant’s record.
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-01060
Therefore, his achievements for the last six months and the most significant ones in his entire Air Force career were not documented anywhere in his Record of Performance (ROP) reviewed by the rater, LTC S--- , and the senior rater, Colonel P---, when they prepared his PRF. The applicant provides a letter from his senior rater dated four years after the 1989 Major Board. He recommends that the corrected PRF prepared by Colonel P--- be entered into the applicant’s record.
In summary, no senior rater, no MLRB President, no central selection board, and no -special selection board has ever reviewed his CY90 (1 year BPZ)"records that included the revised CY89 ( 2 year BPZ) PRF. Based on the SRR review of his PO589 PRF and subsequent upgrade, the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for the CY89A Board. Based on upon a senior rater review (SRR) of his previous CY89 (1 5 May 89) lieutenant colonel...
In 1996 and 1997, she was awarded a Definitely Promote (DP) recommendation in both of her below-the-zone (BPZ) considerations for promotion to lieutenant colonel. In support of her appeal, her senior rater states that "her PRF omitted selection for Senior Service School and command. It only reflects job performance for the final 5 months of consolidation and deactivation from August 1997 to February 98.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1992-01286
Based on a statement from the applicant’s senior rater, submitted with a letter from the applicant dated 16 Oct 02, the Board considered the applicant’s request for reconsideration on 30 May 03. Applicant’s senior rater indicated his error on the applicant’s PRF, definitely recommended him for promotion, and strongly supported the applicant’s consideration for promotion by SSB. Counsel addresses the following issues: a. AFPC/DPPPE states that their current advisory is an addendum to their...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00067
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00067 INDEX CODES: 111.01, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 21 Aug 99 through 20 Aug 00 be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished OPR. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02047
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-02047 #3 INDEX CODE 131.10 131.05 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be reinstated to Regular component active duty as if never separated with all entitlements based on a Regular component commission at his current Reserve grade of colonel. ...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00291
Or, in the alternative, He be reinstated to active duty and given “valid” promotion consideration by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1991A (CY91A) and CY91B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSBs); i.e., with overall recommendations of “Definitely Promote(DP)” on the Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) and faithfully/realistically replicated competition. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. The Senior Attorney-Advisor, HQ AFPC/JA, provides a...
Or, in the alternative, He be reinstated to active duty and given “valid” promotion consideration by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1991A (CY91A) and CY91B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Boards (CSBs); i.e., with overall recommendations of “Definitely Promote(DP)” on the Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) and faithfully/realistically replicated competition. A copy of the complete evaluation is at Exhibit E. The Senior Attorney-Advisor, HQ AFPC/JA, provides a...