ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-01251-2
INDEX NUMBER: 131.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 13 Oct 06
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared on him and viewed
by the CY00A (28 Nov 00) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board
be replaced with a revised PRF supported by his senior rater and
management level review (MLR) president.
He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
special selection board (SSB) for the CY00A Lieutenant Colonel
Central Selection Board.
__________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 30 Aug 05, the Board denied the applicant’s requests as stated
above (Exhibit F). In a memorandum dated 18 Mar 06, the applicant
requests reconsideration of the Board’s decision. As new evidence,
he submits a letter from an active duty colonel currently serving as
a senior rater to support his previously made argument that it is
standard practice to use previous PRFs as other reliable information
for promotion consideration as long as it is the officer being
considered who provides a copy of the PRF. The applicant references
an Evaluation Reports Appeal Board case and subsequent AFBCMR case
on another officer where his entire PRF was rewritten without having
to provide line-by-line justification. Finally, the applicant
reviews the revised PRF he wants substituted in his record line-by-
line to show it was not completely rewritten (Exhibit G)
__________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Pursuant to the Board’s request, AFPC/DPPPE provided a new
evaluation to address the applicant’s current contentions. They
still recommend the applicant’s appeal be denied because the
applicant has not provided evidence of a material error in the PRF
he wants replaced.
DPPPE states that the letter provided by the colonel presently
serving as an active duty senior rater asserting it is common
practice for an officer to provide a previous PRF to their current
senior rater does not mean it constitutes standard practice across
the Air Force or is Air Force policy. In regards to the PRF the
applicant references as being completely rewritten without line-by-
line justification, DPPPE states the difference in this case and the
applicant’s is the other officer had negative information removed
from his record of performance as the basis for the new PRF. The
applicant is requesting changes to make the PRF “harder hitting,”
“include stratification” and to “provide embellishments.” These
types of changes should be made before a PRF becomes a matter of
record. While the applicant has the support of his senior rater and
MLR President, the Air Force Instruction clearly states that they
should not support a requested change to a PRF unless a material
error exists.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit H.
__________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response to the Air Force evaluation applicant states that
AFPC/DPPPE has “flip-flopped” from their original position. The
applicant emphasizes that his appeal is based on the fact that he,
the ratee, provided a copy of his PRF corrected in his previous
appeal to the AFBCMR to his senior rater. Both his senior rater and
the MLR president concur that had the corrected PRF been available
at the time of his original promotion cycle, they would have awarded
him a “Definitely Promote” promotion recommendation.
The applicant states now that it is established he was allowed via
the applicable Air Force Instruction (AFI) to give his senior rater
access to previous PRFs, DPPPE has added to their recommendation “we
must prevent the simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade,
rewrite, or void a report.” The applicant states he is surprised
that DPPPE discounts the integrity of a two-star and a three-star
general in such a manner. The applicant opines that AFIs are
written to put promotion system integrity in the hands of the
General officers directly involved in a promotion appeal by
requiring both the support of the senior rater and MLR president to
support changing a promotion recommendation from “Promote” to
“Definitely Promote.” DPPPE acknowledges that he has met this very
stringent requirement in their previous advisory, but now chooses to
ignore it. The support he has been provided fully supports the
correction of his PRF from a “Promote” to a “Definitely Promote” and
change of the verbiage in section IV to fully support the new
recommendation.
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit J.
__________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
After again reviewing the previous evidence of record as well as the
new evidence of record, we are still not persuaded the applicant has
been the victim of an error or injustice warranting the relief he
seeks. In that regard, we agree with the opinion and recommendation
prepared by AFPC/DPPPE and adopt their rationale as the basis for our
conclusion to deny the requested relief. Therefore, 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-
01251 in Executive Session on 25 July 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Ms. B J White-Olson, Panel Chair
Ms. Janet I. Hassan, Member
Mr. Patrick C. Daugherty, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit F. ROP, dated 21 Sep 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit G. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 18 Mar 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit H. Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 22 May 06.
Exhibit I. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Jun 06.
Exhibit J. Memorandum, Applicant, dated 17 Jun 06.
B J WHITE-OLSON
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01251
He has suffered an injustice because had his records been complete at the time the PRF was prepared, he would have received a “Definitely Promote” (DP) recommendation from his senior rater. AFPC/DPPPE contends that the applicant’s senior rater did review accurate information within the applicant’s record at the time the CY99B PRF was completed. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. __________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-04099
Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below. The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, reviewed by the CY00A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 28 November 2000, containing an overall recommendation in Section IX of “Do Not Promote This Board” be declared void and removed from his records and replaced with the attached PRF, which reads in Section IV, line nine, “Superb officer/leader…does it all! The Promotion...
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...
Furthermore, we recommend his corrected record be considered for promotion by an SSB for the CY00A 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 Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Calendar Year 2000A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and removed from his records...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01151
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS INDEX CODE 111.01 111.03 111.05 131.01 IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01151 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: Yes _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period closing 24 Oct 98 be declared void, the Performance Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00201
He be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for promotion to the grade of colonel by the Calendar Year 2000A Colonel Central Selection Board 2. In view of this fact, we recommend the applicant be considered for promotion to colonel by the SSB for the CY00A Colonel Central Selection Board. He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2000A Colonel Central Selection Board.
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02036
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-02036 (Case 2) INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS: Direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, with a retroactive date of rank as if selected by the CY00A (28 November 2000) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB), and with a Definitely Promote (DP)...
The applicant has received four OPR’s since his promotion to major, all of which reflect “Meets Standards.” The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force. Research suggests it was an input error at the applicant’s base level that was not discovered until the OPR was submitted to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC). TERRY A. YONKERS Panel Chair AFBCMR...
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 | CY2005 | BC-2004-02368
In support of his request, the applicant submitted a personal statement, Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) application, dated 6 April 2004, AF Form 948, Application for Correction/Removal of Evaluation Reports, AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation, AF Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, Air Force Review Boards Agency Directive AFBCMR 01-00212, a letter from the Senior Rater, and Department of the Air Force, Pacific Air Forces letter, dated 10 September 2003. The Board further...