RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01016
INDEX CODE: 131.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 6 AUGUST 2007
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be directly promoted to the grade of Lt Colonel.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Two years ago, while going through his military documents, he discovered he
had been denied promotion to Lt Col because of his base commander’s
original endorsement to his OER.
Upon his return from two combat tours in Vietnam (1966 & 1967), he was
assigned duties in the Netherlands as the services deputy commander.
During his tour, there was a major aircraft accident involving an F-4 jet.
He was not involved, but his base commander downgraded his OER because he
was on the staff of the local commander.
By the time he realized his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) was
downgraded, his base commander had been reassigned to Pakistan. He wrote
his former base commander and explained the situation. He received a
corrected statement; however, by that time the promotion board had already
met.
He would like the Board to review his entire service record and promote him
to Lt Col from the date he would have been selected.
In support of the application, the applicant submits his personal
statement, a copy of his DD 214, a copy of the contested OER, and a copy of
his former base commander’s statement. The applicant's complete
submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
During the period in question, the applicant was serving as a major on
extended active duty with a date of rank of 9 December 1969. He was
relieved from active duty service and retired on 1 September 1975. He had
served 27 years, 6 months and 22 days on active duty service.
The following is a resume of his last seven Officer Effectiveness Reports
(OERs) commencing with the report ending 7 Jul 69:
PERIOD ENDING PROMOTION POTENTIAL
7 Jul 69 3
*16 Mar 70 3
14 Sep 70 3
14 Sep 71 4
14 Sep 72 4
14 Sep 73 4
16 Aug 74 4
*Corrected Report.
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from
the applicant’s military records, are contained in the letters prepared by
the appropriate offices of the Air Force at Exhibits C & D.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
HQ AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial. DPPPO states the application is untimely.
DPPPO notes although the applicant contends he did not discover the error
until 20 Aug 04, the correct OER has been on file since 23 Jun 72. The
applicant met and was nonselected for promotion by the following Temporary
Lieutenant Colonel Boards: T05 FY72 (26 Jul 71), T05 FY73 (17 Jul 72), T05
FY74 (26 Mar 73), T05, FY75 (22 Apr 74) and T05 FY76 (27 Jan 75).
DPPPO states their review of the applicant’s records reveals that the
corrected OER was filed in the selection folder on 23 Jun 72, after the
FY72 Lt Col board convened, but it was on file for the remainder of the
boards the applicant met. DPPPO notes the applicant has not provided any
documentation to support his claim that he was denied promotion because of
the uncorrected report. In addition, the corrected OER did meet the next
four promotion boards and he was again nonselected for promotion, so it is
highly probable that the applicant was aware of the corrected report and
could have requested supplemental consideration in 1972 or anytime
thereafter. Unfortunately, because of the delay in the applicant’s
appealing his nonselection, not all records are available to determine
whether the applicant ever received supplemental consideration based on the
corrected report.
DPPPO states the application may be dismissed under the equitable doctrine
of laches, which denies relief to one who has unreasonably and inexcusably
delayed in asserting claim. This unreasonable delay has caused prejudice
to the Air Force, as all relevant records are not available for review. In
addition, the economic impact to the government is unreasonable as the
applicant would be eligible for back pay of the difference between major
and lieutenant colonel pay over a 30+ year period.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
HQ AFPC/JA concurred with the findings and recommendations by DPPPO, and
recommends the application be denied as untimely. JA states the applicant
has failed to exercise the due diligence required by law and as a result of
his lengthy delay, probative evidence is no longer available to fully
assess the merits of his claim.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In his response dated June 8, 2006, the applicant disagreed with the Air
Force findings and recommendations. He states he honorably served his
country for 28 years and 6 months. He affirms prior to this incident, he
served two combat tours as a volunteer in Vietnam and received numerous
awards. He opines a bad endorsement for his outstanding OER from his
commanding officer was a kiss of death to his career as an Air Force
officer. He believes he could meet 50 promotion boards and the result
would be the same – no promotion. He agrees that he knew about this case
before 2004.
He states that his promotion would impact economically on his back pay for
30 years. Presently, he works as a volunteer mediator without any fees or
pay attachment. Prior to this position, he was a volunteer for five years
for the local golf tournament, also without pay. Prior to that, he was
instrumental in starting up a charity called Kid’s Fair, sponsored by a
local community center.
He notes that in 1965, he voluntarily attended airborne training and
successfully completed this course. One of his classmates in this course
later became a lieutenant general and commander. He paid for this course
out of his own pocket to enhance his value to the Air Force prior to his
tours in Vietnam.
He requests justice with our without compensation.
The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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 error or injustice. We note the applicant’s contentions
concerning the corrected statement on his OER; however, we do not find
these uncorroborated assertions sufficiently persuasive to override the
rationale provided by the primary office of responsibility (HQ AFPC/DPPPO).
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 AFBCMR BC-2006-01016 in
Executive Session on 13 July 2006, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 29 Mar 06 w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 16 May 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/JA, dated 24 May 06.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 2 Jun 06.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, 8 Jun 06.
RICHARD A. PETERSON
Panel Chair
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 | CY2007 | BC-2006-02894
Prior to entering active duty, applicant was advised, in a letter dated 29 Jan 03 that based on the current board schedules he would be eligible for promotion IPZ by the CY05A Lt Col board. Applicant cites DOD Instruction 1320.13, para 4.1 and Table E2.T1, for the proposition that he should have been required to meet the CY06 promotion board IPZ with his original Air Force Academy graduate year group rather than having been “accelerated” to meet a promotion board a year earlier. Title...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-00524
He was selected for promotion to major above-the- promotion zone (APZ) by the CY02A Major Board and was given a DOR and effective date of 1 Oct 02. The board was the CY04B Lt Colonel board. ___________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that he was not considered for promotion in-the-promotion zone to the grade of lieutenant colonel...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-02095
Prior to the Major selection Board, his records accurately reflected the time gap in his military service as well as an explanation on his missing OPRs. In support of the application, he submits his personal statement, a copy of a letter from HQ ARPC/DPSZ and his proposed letter to the CY06A Lt Col Selection Board. Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 3 Aug 06, w/atchs.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00070
However, he was not selected to the grade of colonel. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPEB notes the applicant has not provided a new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior rater and management level evaluation board as required. Also, to suggest that the policy prevented him from being promoted is not warranted as other AFIT attendees, who received training reports, have been promoted to the grade of colonel.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03220
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/JA recommends denial and notes that, contrary to the suggestion by the applicant, he was offered an opportunity to request reinstatement to active duty as a major and he obviously opted for the alternative that awarded him service credit for those years without his having to actually return to active duty. In this particular case, the applicant, who was awarded retroactive service credit for the more than 12 years his record...
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01537
Shortly thereafter, someone informed him about a message the Spangdahlem LG/CC sent to HQ USAFE, with copies to all Major Commands (MAJCOMs), indicating he had turned down the supply squadron commander assignment and recommending to all that he not receive consideration for any more squadron commander positions. Although he indicates at least six individuals had knowledge of the message, no statements are provided. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD...
A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 17 May 02 for review and response. We note that the MSM (2OLC) was not required to be filed in the applicant’s records when he was considered for promotion by the CY01B Lieutenant Colonel Board. ...
Air Force Regulation 36-89, Oct 77, stated eligibility criteria for promotion to captain as two years time in grade as a first lieutenant. A complete copy of the DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and noted that the applicant was selected for promotion by the CY97A (3 Feb 97) lieutenant colonel selection board. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or...
The AFBCMR has considered these previous cases: In an application dated 18 January 1965, the applicant, a captain, made the following request: The AF Form 77, USAF Officer Effectiveness Report (OER), for the period 1 August 1963 - 31 May 1964 be removed from his records. In an application dated 13 May 1972, the applicant, a major, made the following requests: a. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be...