ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-01421-2
INDEX CODE: 131.03
XXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: MR. GARY R. MYERS
HEARING DESIRED: YES
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
In his application for reconsideration, he be considered by a Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2003A (CY03A) Colonel
(Chaplain) Central Selection Board (CSB).
___________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
According to the military personnel data system, the applicant is currently
serving on active duty with a Total Active Federal Military Service Date of
24 March 1982 and a projected date of separation of 31 March 2010. His
current grade is lieutenant colonel with an effective date and a date of
rank of 1 April 1999. The following is a resume of the applicant’s
performance ratings:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
09 Jul 92 (Major) MS
03 May 93 MS
30 Jun 94 MS
30 Jun 95 MS
30 Jun 96 MS
30 Jun 97 MS
27 May 98 MS
27 May 99 (Lt Col) MS
27 May 00 MS
27 May 01 MS
27 May 02 MS
27 May 03 MS
22 Mar 04 MS
22 Mar 05 MS
22 Mar 06 MS
The applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of
colonel by the CY03B and the CY04C Colonel (Chaplain) CSBs, which convened
on 27 October 2003 and 6 December 2004, respectively.
The applicant submitted a similar appeal, which was considered and denied
by the Board on 14 October 2004. The applicant contends the board
membership for the CY03B Colonel (Chaplain) CSB was not properly
constituted in that an African-American chaplain member was knowingly and
willfully kept from participation by command in contravention of
regulation. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding
the rationale for the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of
Proceedings at Exhibit G (with Exhibits A-F).
On 14 September 2005, the applicant’s counsel submitted a request for
reconsideration. In support of his request, he submits three
declarations from senior chaplains, disagreeing with the Air Force
advisory opinions and stating the promotion board was biased and flawed.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.
___________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AF/JAA recommends denial of the applicant request for SSB consideration.
JAA states the evidence now offered for reconsideration is not “new” in
the sense that it was available and existed, but was not obtained by the
applicant when he first applied for relief from the AFBCMR, but rather,
it is additional evidence newly provided apparently to corroborate his
previously “uncorroborated assertion” noted by the AFBCMR. The
additional evidence provided by the applicant corroborates his prior
submitted evidence that the manner in which his promotion board members
were selected deviated from prior practice within the chaplaincy, but his
promotion board was constituted in full compliance with the relevant
statutes and regulations, and he has provided no evidence showing there
was an error or injustice. The implication that such a deviation somehow
prejudiced the applicant in the promotion process is not supported by the
additional evidence. Even if the applicable statute and regulations
required minority membership on his promotion board (which they do not),
an African-American did sit as a voting member of his promotion board.
There is no evidence the fact that person was not a chaplain had any
prejudicial effect on the applicant or beneficial effect for any of those
who were promoted. Further, even if the applicable statute and
regulations required minority or female membership on his promotion
board, the law does not afford the applicant or any other minority or
female officer being considered for promotion the right to demand a
specific minority or female individual or a minority or female from his
or her specific career field.
It is JAA’s opinion the applicant has failed to demonstrate the existence
of any error or to present any facts or circumstances supporting an
injustice.
The complete AF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit I.
AFGOMO recommends the applicant’s request be denied. AFGOMO states the
Selection Board Secretariat’s Chaplain Board requirement for an African-
American board member from either the line of the Air Force or the
Chaplain career field was met.
The complete AFGOMO evaluation is at Exhibit J.
___________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant’s counsel replies the “deviation” was not known to the
chaplaincy at large. In fact, the African-American colonel who should
have sat on the promotion board was never contacted about the prospect of
sitting on the board. It is not enough for the government to meekly
return to the Board with the rejoinder that a minority line officer who
was appointed to the selection board met the statutory and regulatory
requirements. An African-American chaplain is going to know the
reputation, ability, and efficacy of junior African-American chaplains
far better than either a minority line officer or a Caucasian chaplain.
That is just the way it works. To suggest otherwise is to ignore
reality. At the risk of appearing flip, only someone who was never the
subject of discrimination could have the audacity to suggest that the
absence of an African-American voice familiar with the chaplaincy had no
impact upon the selection process. Why, pray tell, does the Board think
the standing policy was to have a minority chaplain on such selection
boards? It was to protect the legitimate interests of minority chaplains
whose promotion rates we have previously demonstrated were woefully
behind the Caucasian rates. The statements provided to the Board,
coupled with the concession made by the Air Force that a deviation in
protocol occurred, created not only the appearance of impropriety, but
also actual impropriety. To restore confidence in the chaplaincy
promotion system and to do justice to the applicant, an SSB is required.
The applicant rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit L.
___________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. Although the applicant has provided some
letters by fellow chaplains agreeing with his contentions, we do not find
these statements, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive so as to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force offices of primary
responsibility. In our opinion and based on the facts of this case, we
believe that the applicant has not established that he did not receive a
fair and equitable consideration for promotion through the selection board
process. Therefore, we agree with the opinions and recommendation of the
Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt their conclusions as
our findings in this case. Accordingly, the applicant’s request for SSB
consideration is not favorably considered.
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 this application in Executive
Session on 14 October 2004, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. John B. Hennessey, Member
Mr. Alan A. Blomgren, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with AFBCMR
Docket No. BC-2004-01421-2:
Exhibit G. ROP, dtd 22 Nov 04, w/ Exhibits A through F.
Exhibit H. Counsel’s Letter, dated 11 Oct 05, w/atchs
Exhibit I. Letter, AFGOMO, dtd 8 Dec 05.
Exhibit J. Letter, AF/JAA, dtd 10 Nov 05.
Exhibit K. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 16 Dec 05.
Exhibit L. Counsel’s Rebuttal, dated 19 Jan 06, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Panel Chair
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 | 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 | CY2010 | BC-2009-01060
________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: It took significant time to get his officer performance report (OPR) and his promotion recommendation form (PRF) corrected, which diminished his chances for promotion by the Calendar Year 2003 (CY03) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) Special Selection Board (SSB). Therefore, he feels the SSB process prejudices his IPZ record as an officer passed over several times, as well as the effects of...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC 2009 01060
________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: It took significant time to get his officer performance report (OPR) and his promotion recommendation form (PRF) corrected, which diminished his chances for promotion by the Calendar Year 2003 (CY03) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) Special Selection Board (SSB). Therefore, he feels the SSB process prejudices his IPZ record as an officer passed over several times, as well as the effects of...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00223
The citation and/or special order for the basic AFCM was not in the applicant’s OSR when the board convened; however, the Officer Selection Board (OSB) for that board reflected receipt of 2 AFCMs in the Decorations Section. He had no reason to believe this was one AFCM Special Order copied twice and the basic AFCM Special Order was not included. MICHAEL K. GALLOGLY Panel Chair AFBCMR BC-2005-00223 MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and considered the recommendation of the...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03088
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-03088 INDEX CODE: 111.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 1 April 2008 ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) considered by the CY03B (27 October 2003) (P0603B) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be replaced with a corrected PRF provided...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-02488
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2006-02488 INDEX CODE: 100.05, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 20 February 2008 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be considered by Special Selection Board (SSB) by the Calendar Year 2003B (CY03B) (8 Dec 03) (P0403B) Major Central Selection Board (CSB) with a...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02441
In support of his request applicant provided a copy of his original PRF and corrected PRF, a letter of support from his senior rater, AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports and a letter from the Supplemental Management Level Review (MLR) President, and AFPC/DPPPE. AFPC/DPPP’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPP amended its previous Air Force evaluation to state the ERAB failed to consider the case after the AF...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02441
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02441 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: EUGENE R. FIDELL XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 JANUARY 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected by removing the references to her excessive work on her Calendar Year (CY) 02B (2 Dec 02) (P0602B) Colonel Central Selection...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02441
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-02441 INDEX CODE: 131.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: EUGENE R. FIDELL XXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 9 JANUARY 2006 ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her records be corrected by removing the references to her excessive work on her Calendar Year (CY) 02B (2 Dec 02) (P0602B) Colonel Central Selection...