ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-01061
INDEX CODES: 131.00, 136.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 APR 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect that he was continued on active
duty until Aug 91, which would enable him to obtain a 28-year
lieutenant colonel career; or, that he was directly promoted to the
grade of colonel and continued on active duty until Aug 93, which
would give him a full 30-year career.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 17 Sep 03, the Board considered and denied an application
pertaining to the subject applicant, in which he requested that his
records be corrected to reflect he was continued on active duty until
August 1991; or, he be directly promoted to the grade of colonel and
continued on active duty until August 1993. A complete copy of the
Record of Proceedings, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit I.
By letter, dated 6 Sep 05, the applicant requests reconsideration of
his appeal. In his most recent submission, the applicant indicates
the AFBCMR relied on incomplete and inaccurate advisory opinions from
the offices of primary responsibilities (OPRs).
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit J.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ USAF/JAA recommends denial indicating that with regard to the
applicant’s reconsideration request in general and each alleged error
in particular, the applicant has failed to submit newly discovered
evidence not considered with the previous application or reasonably
available at that time. The essence of the applicant’s initial
appeal, request for reconsideration, and many assertions of error is
that the AFBCMR’s 1983 correction (making him eligible for successful
competition for promotion to lieutenant colonel) also created an
inherent injustice in that it was difficult for him to compete for
promotion to colonel. As was pointed out in one of the advisories in
the file, consequential adverse impact of an AFBCMR decision is
something members simply have to accept. There is no perfect solution
and, in this case, the AFBCMR has made very reasonable and appropriate
decisions based on the evidence before it.
A complete copy of the HQ USAF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit K.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 7
Dec 05 for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit L). On 23 Dec
05, the applicant requested that his appeal be temporarily withdrawn
(Exhibit M).
Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a detailed
response, indicating, in part, that however well meaning, the advisory
opinion does not totally grasp his case and erred often in its
analysis.
Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit O.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
In an earlier finding, we determined that there was insufficient
evidence to warrant any corrective action. The applicant’s most
recent submission was thoroughly reviewed and his contentions were
duly noted. However, we did not find his assertions and his
supporting documentation sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale proffered by HQ USAF/JAA. Notwithstanding his arguments to
the contrary, we believe HQ USAF/JAA has adequately addressed the
issues raised by the applicant. Therefore, we agree with the
recommendation of HQ USAF/JAA and adopt their rationale as the basis
for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden
of establishing he has suffered either an error or an injustice.
Accordingly, we find no compelling basis to act favorably on this
appeal.
_________________________________________________________________
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 BC-2002-
01061 in Executive Session on 27 Jun 06, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Panel Chair
Mr. Richard K. Hartley, Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit I. Record of Proceedings, dated 29 Sep 03, w/atchs.
Exhibit J. Letter, applicant, dated 6 Sep 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit K. Letter, HQ USAF, dated 29 Nov 05.
Exhibit L. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 7 Dec 05.
Exhibit M. Letter, applicant, dated 23 Dec 05.
Exhibit N. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Jan 06.
Exhibit O. Letter, applicant, dated 30 Jan 06, w/atch.
CHARLES E. BENNETT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2001-00580A
The applicant’s complete review is at Exhibit K. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL HQ USAF/JAA EVALUATION: HQ USAF/JAA reiterates that the applicant’s original debt of $50,669.90 was reduced to $25,669.90 and, to the extent that his reconsideration request was for the repayment of this validly established debt owed to the US, it should be denied. DFAS summarizes the applicant’s indebtedness and adjustments thereto as follows: $50,669.90 Original...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2002-00745A
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-00745 INDEX CODES: 131.01, 131.09 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be directly promoted to the grade of colonel; or, he again be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Calendar Year 2001A (CY01A) Colonel...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2002-01061
His statement from the recorder of many promotion boards states the board members relied heavily on the AF Forms 705 in determining whom they recommended for promotion. The applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit T. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: We have thoroughly reviewed the evidence of record and considered the weight and relevance of the additional documentation provided by the applicant, and whether or...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-03891
The result of the MEB determined he was no longer physically able to serve in the Air Force Reserve. Applicant’s letter, with attachments is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request, HQ USAF/JAA states that a Reserve commissioned officer that is transferred to the Retired Reserve is entitled to be placed on the retired list in the highest grade in which he served satisfactorily and in...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-01103-2
_________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS On 21 February 2006, the Board considered and denied his request but because of ongoing litigation (Doe v. Rumsfeld) surrounding the Anthrax Vaccination Program (AVIP) the Board provided a caveat that should the plaintiffs in the aforementioned case prevail against the Secretary of Defense, the Board would reconsider the applicant’s request. After careful and deliberate review of the HQ USAF/JAA advisory...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1988-02856A
Applicant further states that if the Board does not find direct promotion appropriate, she then asks for SSB consideration for the 1994 through 1997 promotion boards based on the Berkley v. US court decision, which addressed a section of the Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) that was presented to the selection boards. After reviewing the prior Board decisions and the additional documentation provided, we still are not persuaded that the applicant has been denied fair and equitable...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-1995-01061A
Applicant further states that if the Board does not find direct promotion appropriate, she then asks for SSB consideration for the 1994 through 1997 promotion boards based on the Berkley v. US court decision, which addressed a section of the Memorandum of Instruction (MOI) that was presented to the selection boards. After reviewing the prior Board decisions and the additional documentation provided, we still are not persuaded that the applicant has been denied fair and equitable...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1981-02400-2
In a letter received on 3 April 1995, counsel requested reconsideration of the application and provided additional documentation, consisting of declarations from Lieutenant General “B”, and Colonels “S” and “K”, indicating the Board’s 1992 decision was erroneous. By letter, dated 15 September 2005, counsel provided a copy of the 12 September 2005 remand order from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia directing the applicant’s request for direct promotion be remanded to the...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02505
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a counsel’s brief, copies of the LOR, OPR, Propriety of Promotion Action, and other documents associated with the matter under review. On 7 Jan 02, the Deputy Secretary of Defense recommended the applicant’s name be removed from the FY00 Lieutenant Colonel Promotion List, indicating the applicant had refused to undergo an anthrax immunization and had advised members of the squadron to refuse their anthrax inoculations. Counsel’s complete...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2004-00944-2
For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at Exhibit H. On 8 September 2006, the applicant submitted a request for reconsideration (Exhibit I), as the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit had provided a decision in the aforementioned case (Exhibit J). JAA provided an advisory on 19 September 2006 that recommended denial of the applicant’s reconsideration...