RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03229
INDEX CODE: 131.01, 107.00
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 25 APR 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected by replacing the Air Force Form 709, Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF) that met the FY03 Line and Health Professions
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 24 June 2002 with
a corrected PRF.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His commander submitted a new PRF and the ERAB findings meet the
criteria for cause under AFI 36-2401 A1.6.2.4.
In support of his request, the applicant submitted an AF IMT Form 709,
Promotion Recommendation and a Memorandum from the 349th Air Mobility
Wing Commander (AFRC).
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Reserves on
13 May 1978 and was progressively promoted to the grade of major.
He was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel by the FY03 Line and Health Professions Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board. He retired on 1 March 2003 in the grade of
major.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
ARPC/DPB recommends denial. DPB states the applicant has not met the
established criteria proving a material error existed in the original
PRF. He received a definitely promote (DP) recommendation, the highest
overall recommendation, and no negative information was removed from
this PRF. The changes made to Sections III, IV, and VI on the proposed
PRF (as compared to the original) appears to be administrative only in
an attempt to drive a different promotion result. DPB states as the
senior rater did not justify any of the changes on the proposed PRF and
the applicant did not provide any information that would lead them to
believe a material error existed with the original PRF, no substitution
should occur.
The DPB complete evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant states his former commander explains the rationale for
the replacement of the PRF by stating “the PRF, over my signature
should be accepted, as it is the most correct and reflective of Major
Seffern…” He also requests that his promotion folder be corrected.
The applicant states he does not know what to make of the PRF. He
received positive confirmation that this had been corrected twice.
The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of an error or injustice. After a thorough review of the
evidence of record and the documentation provided, we are not persuaded
that the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. We
are not persuaded by the evidence presented, that the applicant was
denied the opportunity to compete successfully for promotion on a fair
and equitable basis. We note the senior rater provided an updated PRF
and recommends the original PRF be replaced. However, the senior rater
does not substantiate that there was a material error in the original
PRF or in the process by which the original PRF was crafted. The board
also notes the applicant received a DP recommendation and no negative
information was removed from the original PRF. Therefore, we agree
with the opinions and recommendations of the Air Force offices of
primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our
conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of an error or
injustice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
4. 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 issue(s) 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 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 considered Docket Number BC-2005-
03229 in Executive Session on 8 March 2006, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Ms. Ms. Kathy L. Boockholdt, Panel Chair
Ms. Cheryl V. Jacobson, Member
Mr. August Doddato, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 19 Oct 05, w/atch.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/DPB, dated, 21 Nov 05, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 23 Dec 05.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 Feb 06.
KATHY L. BOOCKHOLDT
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02883
In support of his response, applicant provided a personal statement; a letter from his wing commander, and letter of certification from the military personnel flight. The attached AF Form 709, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), prepared for the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy (PV) Promotion Selection Board, was accepted for file on 21 April 2004. c. It is further recommended that his record, to include the attached AF Form 709,...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-00088
On 1 April 2004, the AFBCMR considered and, by a majority vote, recommended approval of applicant's request for removal of the OPR, closing 10 February 2002, LOCs, LOA, UIF, and all references thereto, from his records and SSB consideration, with his corrected record. As to the Board’s previous decision, DPB indicates that HQ ARPC complied (all available references to the LOC, LOA, UIF and the OPR were removed from the applicant’s record), and awarded SSB in lieu of the FY03 and FY04 Line...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02866
A complete copy of the ARPC/DPB evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response indicating that as a result of administrative corrections to his position, he now has all the requirements to meet a position vacancy board: time in grade, a valid lieutenant colonel position, and the intent to nominate. Based on the assumption that...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03549
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-03549 INDEX CODE 131.01 135.02 COUNSEL: No HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be awarded 144 extension course institute (ECI) points, the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) Line and Health Professions Lt Colonel Position Vacancy (PV) Selection Board be replaced and he be...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02992
In support of his appeal, he has provided copies of a letter from the 701 MDS/CC certifying his outstanding performance as a member of the unit, two personal statements, a letter supporting the DOR change from the 10 AMDS/CC and endorsed by the 10 MDG/CC, a draft PRF that was not signed or submitted to the AFRES CSB, an endorsement letter from AFRESL/MLL, a vMPF RIP showing DOR timeline, an Education vMPF RIP, an FY03 AFRES Line and Health Professions Captain Select List, a AFRES Change to...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2004-02947
It is further recommended that his record, to include the attached Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, signed by Colonel Close, be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, Air Force Reserve, by a Special Review Board (SRB), and his records be evaluated in comparison with the records of officers who were and were not selected by the FY05 Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel PV Promotion Selection Board, and if recommended for promotion by the SRB,...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-03036
_________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that the attached Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05) Line and Health Professions Lieutenant Colonel Position Vacancy (PV) Promotion Selection Board, was accepted for file on 22 April 2004. It is further recommended that her record, to...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-03393
A health professions officer nominated for PV promotion must complete their PME by the PRF submission date, 45 days before the board convenes. We note that apparently in accordance with the established governing policy, the applicant’s nomination for a PV promotion was returned because she had not completed the appropriate level of professional military education (PME) at the time the PRF was submitted. In this respect, the Board notes that a health professions officer nominated for PV...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00824
In this regard, we noted the statement from the applicant’s flight commander to HQ ARPC, which the senior rater concurred with, indicating that the applicant’s position vacancy promotion recommendation form (PV PRF) package was completed in a timely manner, but for several reasons was not processed by the published suspense date, resulting in the applicant being denied an opportunity for promotion consideration. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00287
The PRF considered by the board had an overall promotion recommendation of “Promote.” _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/DPB recommends the application be denied. The ARPC/DPB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that although she was required to have received a copy of the PRF submitted to the...