ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-03463-2
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
She be directly promoted to the grade of colonel (O-6) as if selected by
the CY00A Colonel Central Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 2 Mar 05, the Board considered and denied the applicant’s request as
indicated above (Exhibit G). In a new DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 06,
applicant requests the Board reopen her case and review it in its entirety
based on two letters she submits, which she believes supports her previous
contention she was reprised against by a General officer due to the filing
of an Inspector General (IG) complaint against him. She opines that the IG
complaint against the General officer constitutes an “extraordinary
circumstance” where direct promotion is her only relief.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After reviewing the complete previous evidence of record and the new
documentation submitted by the applicant, we again do not find evidence of
an error or injustice warranting the relief requested. The two new
statements the applicant submits do not provide compelling evidence to
overcome the basis of our previous decision. We note that the statement
discussing comments attributed to her rater simply states he was “not going
to be able to help her.” This is not new evidence as the applicant
indicated in her initial appeal that she could not expect the help of her
rater due to the IG complaint she had filed. Likewise, the other statement
also does not provide compelling evidence to support her allegation she has
not received full and fair consideration both by this Board and the Special
Selection Board (SSB) that considered her record for promotion because of
“General Officer prejudice.” Even if we were inclined to accept the
veracity of the two statements on their face, we do not believe the
evidence they provide is sufficient to overcome the presumption of
regularity in how the Special Selection Board that considered her record
for promotion carried out its duties. We are aware that the board members
swore to the following oath: “I solemnly swear that I will without
prejudice or partiality having in view both the special fitness of the
officers and the efficiency and effectiveness of the United States Air
Force perform the duties imposed upon me.” The applicant has simply failed
to provide sufficient evidence the board members did not fulfill their
charge. Therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary,
we again recommend denial of the requested relief.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate
the existence of probable 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 reconsidered this application in
Executive Session on 20 September 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Kathleen Graham, Member
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit G. Record of Proceedings, dated 9 Mar 05,
with Exhibits.
Exhibit H. .DD Form 149, dated 7 Aug 06, w/atchs.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-00497
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-00497 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 15 AUG 08 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2005A (CY05A) Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be declared void and removed from his...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01716
In support of her request, the applicant provided a personal statement, copy of statement Reason for Appeal of Referral EPR, AF IMT Form 910 Enlisted Performance Report, a Rebuttal to Referral Report Memorandum, a Letter of Appreciation, AF Form IMT 931, Performance Feedback Worksheet, five Letters of Recommendation and excerpts from her military personnel records. On 3 October 2005, an unsigned copy of the referral EPR dated 30 September 2005 was presented to her. After reviewing the...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2012 05342
The Evaluation Report Appeals Board (ERAB) directed that his EPR closing 29 Jun 06 be replaced; however, he should have been provided supplemental promotion consideration for promotion cycles 07E8 and 08E8. Regarding the applicants contention his EPR covering the period 1 Apr 05 through 30 Sep 06, which is only a matter of record because he requested that it replace another report, was in error because it was not signed by his additional rater at the time in violation of AFI 36-2406, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03819
The additional rater believes the applicant’s contention that the EPR in question was the result of a personality conflict based on her outstanding performance at the AFDRB. The report was also considered during cycle 05E6, but the applicant was not selected. An EPR profile from 1998 follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 4 Nov 98 5 (Ft. Meade) 1 Dec 99 5 (Ft. Meade) 1 Dec 00 5 (Ft. Meade) 5 Aug 01 5 (Ft. Meade) 31 Mar 02 4 (Contested EPR-Ft. Meade) 31 Mar 03 5 (AFDRB) 31 Mar 04 5...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-03006
The HQ AFPC/DPSOS’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/JA recommends the applicant’s nonselection for retention by the 6 June 2006 FSB be set aside and that she be considered by a special FSB selection board utilizing a corrected RRF. However, the majority of the Board believes that thorough and fitting relief in this case would be to correct her records to show that she was selected for retention by the 10 Apr 06 FSB, and to reinstate her to active duty. Accordingly, the...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00021
Applicant failed to provide supporting evidence to prove the report is inaccurate or was completed with any form of bias. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record and that provided by the applicant, the Board majority believes that some doubt has been presented regarding a push for a group command assignment in the PRF submitted for the CY04A Colonel Central Selection Board. Therefore, the majority of the Board recommends that the applicant’s PRF for the CY04A Colonel Central...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01303
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: At the time of her selection to major in Apr 01, her active duty supervisor was not informed by the 12 MSS/DPMPEP (officer promotions) or by the AFPC/CCR (Reserve Advisor) that he could accelerate her promotion in accordance with AFI 36-2504, paragraph 6.5. The also noted the applicant’s statement she was notified of promotion by her supervisor on 17 Apr 01. According to ARPC/DPB, information...
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.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-00395A
The overall recommendation on her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) was “Promote.” On 14 Jul 05, the AFBCMR considered and denied the applicant’s request for voidance of her 4 Jun 04 OPR and consideration by an SSB for the CY04A selection board. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit F. The applicant has provided additional evidence showing she did...
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...