RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01578
INDEX NUMBER: 136.00
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: Yes
MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 Nov 07
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The results of the CY06 Line of the Air Force Force Shaping Board
results be corrected to show that he was selected for retention.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
He believes his records were in error because he is aware of an
individual that was stratified below him in all areas on the AF IMT
3538, “Retention Recommendation” form, who was retained. He and this
individual met the same board under the same core Air Force Specialty
Code (AFSC). He had 10 more points in decorations than the other
individual, their deployment status was the same, and they both re-
cored from the same AFSC. Given the results of the board, a mistake
must have taken place.
In support of his appeal, applicant provides a copy of the retention
recommendation prepared on him. The applicant’s complete submission,
with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of first
lieutenant. He was considered and not selected for retention by the
L9906A Force Shaping Board (10 Apr 06). According to the Military
Personnel Data System (MilPDS) he has a current date of separation
(DOS) of 28 Sep 06.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPRF recommends denial of the applicant’s request for
consideration for retention by special selection board for the CY06
Force Shaping Board. They note that each officer’s Retention
Recommendation Form (RRF) was written by the first colonel or GS-15 in
their chain and endorsed by their senior rater. The senior rater was
limited to one standardized statement in which they rank ordered all
of their officers within the eligible officers in their year group and
core AFSC. Stratification by a senior rater is only one aspect of the
retention recommendation. The members of the board are empanelled as
an independent body to factor the senior rater’s stratification into
their assessment of the officer’s record. If based on the Secretary
of the Air Force’s guidance to use the whole-person concept, an
officer is deemed by the board’s collective evaluation not to be the
best qualified for retention in the Air Force, they will not be
retained regardless of the senior rater’s recommendation or
stratification.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPO also recommends denial of the applicant’s request. They
concur with the findings and recommendations as put forth by
AFPC/DPPRF.
The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on
14 Jul 06 for review and comment within 30 days. To date, a response
has not been received.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law
or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice. We took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
offices of primary responsibility and adopt their rationale as the
primary basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the
victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, 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 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 Docket Number BC-2006-
01578 in Executive Session on 24 August 2006, under the provisions of
AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Michael J. Novel, Panel Chair
Ms. Jan Mulligan, Member
Mr. Gregory A. Parker, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 17 May 06, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Memo, AFPC/DPPRF, dated 2 Jun 06.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 7 Jul 06.
MICHAEL J. NOVEL
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2006-01578
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01578 INDEX NUMBER: 136.00 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: Yes MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 22 Nov 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The results of the CY06 Line of the Air Force Force Shaping Board results be corrected to show that he was selected for retention. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01656
The remaining 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 at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPRF recommends denial. The complete DPPRF evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...
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-2006-01772
In support, the applicant provides a reaccomplished RRF and a statement from her senior rater, the Assistant Vice Chief of Staff (HQ USAF/CVA), who requests the contested RRF be replaced with the reaccomplished form including the WHSA duty information. The AF/CVA Protocol Office indicated the applicant “no longer worked there,” was on terminal leave, and had been selected for the WHSA position after the CY06A FSB convened. HQ AFPC/DPPRF noted the applicant’s submission did not indicate...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2006-03299
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She was promised $22,347 minus taxes as separation pay and her separation orders authorized the pay. U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 1174, Separation pay upon involuntary discharge or release from active duty, (c)(1)(a), states members must have completed 6 or more years of active service immediately before release to be entitled to separation pay. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01579
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01579 INDEX CODE: 131.01 XXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY COMPLETION DATE: 27 NOVEMBER 2007 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Officer Selection Record (OSR) be corrected to reflect her Acquisition Professional Development Program (APDP) Level I Certification (10 December 2003), and ADPD Level II...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2013-00151
Moreover, we are not persuaded by the evidence that the stratification statements contained in the PRF reviewed by the CY06 Lt Col Promotion board were not consistent with his complete record of performance. _________________________________________________________________ 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...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01736
Due to an anomaly with some records during the CY06 FSB, 192 of the lieutenants who were not selected for retention will have their records reconsidered by a special board scheduled to convene 26 June 2006. ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied and states, in part, that the absence of the decoration is not an error since the orders awarding it were not published until after the CY06 FSB...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC 2007 03956
________________________________________________________________ _ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPSIDEP recommends denial of the applicants request to reaccomplish his 10 Jun 06 OPR, his 15 Dec 06 OPR, and his RRF for the L9907B/1C881 Force Shaping Board. However, giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt, and if directed by the AFBCMR, they would agree to changing the word shows to showed, on the Dec 06 OPR; however, whether the change is made or not, it does not make the report...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2006-01336
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2006-01336 INDEX CODE: COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE: 6 Nov 07 _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The recoupment action of the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) be terminated. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered this...