THIRD ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1995-03805
INDEX CODE: 100.00
XXXXXXX COUNSEL: JOSEPH W. KASTL
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His record, to include a Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF)
reflecting a “Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendation, be considered for
promotion to the grade of colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for
the Calendar Year 1994 (CY94) Colonel Selection Board; or in the
alternative,
2. He be promoted to the grade of colonel as if selected by the CY94
board.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
Since he never received a rating from the aggregate board, it is erroneous
to state that he got a “Promote (P)” recommendation, met the SSB, and was
not promoted. Based on his performance, eye-watering performance reports,
and past high recommendations, his record was clearly competitive for a
“DP” recommendation. He questions how the aggregate board could say he was
given a “P” recommendation when in fact they only saw the illegal PRF sent
by the senior rater.
It was the decision of the USAFE MLEB that his records go to the aggregate
board to compete for a “DP” recommendation. One of the general officers
sitting on the USAFE MLEB was responsible for his getting a “DP”
recommendation during his below-the-promotion zone (BTZ) consideration. As
such, he was at the top to receive a “DP” recommendation from the aggregate
board until the senior rater look illegal steps to change the PRF.
Applicant/Counsel’s complete submissions, with attachments, are at Exhibits
FF and GG.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
On 7 August 1996, the Board considered applicant’s requests that the PRF
prepared for the CY94 Colonel Selection Board be declared void and he be
promoted to the grade of colonel as if selected by the CY94 board. The
Board found sufficient evidence to warrant voiding the contested PRF,
replacing it with a PRF reflecting an overall evaluation of “P,” and
providing the applicant promotion consideration by an SSB for the CY94
board. However, the Board found insufficient evidence of a probable error
or injustice to warrant his direct promotion to the grade of colonel
through the correction of records process. For an accounting of the facts
and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and the rationale
of the earlier decision by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings at
Exhibit H.
An SSB, convened on 13 January 1997 for the CY94 board, and considered and
non-selected the applicant for promotion to the grade of colonel.
On 11 May 1999, the Board considered the applicant’s amended request that
the Field Grade Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 1
April 1993 through 31 March 1994, be removed from his records; his
nonselection for promotion to the grade of colonel by the SSB be declared
void; and he be promoted to the grade of colonel. The Board found
sufficient evidence to warrant voiding the contested OPR and providing him
promotion consideration by another SSB for the CY94 Col Board. However,
the Board again found insufficient evidence of a probable error or
injustice to warrant his direct promotion to the grade of colonel through
the correction of records process. For an accounting of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and the rationale of
the earlier decision by the Board, see the Addendum to Record of
Proceedings at Exhibit L.
An SSB, convened on 10 January 2000 for the CY94A, CY96A, and CY98C boards,
and considered and non-selected the applicant for promotion to the grade of
colonel.
An SSB, convened on 13 July 2000 for the CY95A and CY97B boards, and
considered and non-selected the applicant for promotion to the grade of
colonel.
On 24 April 2003, the Board reconsidered his request for promotion to the
grade of colonel. The Board found insufficient evidence to warrant
circumventing the SSB process and promoting the applicant through the
correction of records process. For an accounting of the facts and
circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation, and the rationale of
the earlier decision by the Board, see the Second Addendum to Record of
Proceedings at Exhibit EE.
In letters of 13 January and 2 December 2005, the applicant and his counsel
request direct promotion to the grade of colonel, or in the alternative,
SSB consideration for the CY 94 Col Board with a “DP” PRF, contending that
applicant never received a “P” recommendation from the aggregate board and
that based on his record of performance, would have received a “DP”
recommendation (Exhibits FF and GG).
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPPPE recommends denial of the applicant’s request to be awarded a
“DP” recommendation and states, in part, that without a competitive review
of the other officers competing at the USAFE MLEB or the USAF Evaluation
Board, and the lack of support from the senior rater or MLEB president, the
only conclusion would be that the applicant’s record would have been
awarded a “P” recommendation. While the senior rater may have changed the
PRF recommendation, one of the MLEB members which reviewed the original PRF
gave no indication the PRF would have earned a “DP” recommendation given by
the MLEB or sent to the USAF Evaluation Board. In the absence of support
from the senior rater or MLEB president to indicate the applicant’s record
would have been forwarded to the USAF Evaluation Board, a “P”
recommendation would be the appropriate recommendation given as a result of
the MLEB. Although the applicant provides various letters of support, the
letters are primarily aimed at pointing out the unfairness of the MLEB
process and that applicant should be promoted. However, these individuals
have no basis for comparison against which to make the assertion that
applicant’s record would have warranted a “DP” recommendation, as they did
not sit on the original USAFE MLEB.
The AFPC/DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit II.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Contrary to the evaluation irrefutable evidence of an error or injustice
has been presented. He had a most impressive record and in the prior 1993
cycle had been recommended for BTZ promotion - extremely rare for a
chaplain. Since his superiors previously awarded him a “DP” recommendation
BTZ in the prior cycle, they manifestly would have given him a well-earned
“DP” recommendation his first time eligible in the promotion zone. Two
former CY94A Chaplain Selection Board members corroborate the excellence of
his work and his sustained superior effort, and support his request. As
the only two chaplains sitting on the board with line officers, it is fair
to conclude the remaining board members, i.e., line officers, would have
followed the voting chaplains. This should mitigate against a mere “P”
recommendation. Furthermore, he has obtained support from the former Chief
of Chaplains and two other senior chaplains.
In further support of the appeal, the applicant’s counsel submits
statements from two former USAFE MLEB members.
Counsel’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit KK.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of error or injustice. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence
of record and the additional documentation submitted by applicant, we
remain unpersuaded the overall recommendation on the contested PRF should
be upgraded to “DP.” In this respect, we note the USAFE MLEB convened on
24 May 1994; the Aggregate Board convened on 14 June 1994; and the senior
rater replaced the PRF on 20 June 1994. Despite this sequence of events,
and the fact that in 1996 the applicant contended the senior rater pulled
the PRF that met the Aggregate Board, he now contends, through counsel, the
senior rater replaced the PRF prior to its consideration by the Aggregate
Board. However, since the evidence of record indicates the senior rater
did not replace the PRF until after the USAFE MLEB and Aggregate Board
convened, we find this contention without merit. Although counsel contends
it was erroneous for the previous AFBCMR panel to determine the applicant
received a “P” recommendation through the aggregate process, we believe it
is obvious they did so based on the evidence of record before them, to
include a statement from the former senior chaplain indicating the senior
rater told him the applicant received a “P” recommendation from the
Aggregate Board. In addition, the PRF reflecting an overall recommendation
of “P” that was directed to be placed in the applicant’s record by the
previous AFBCMR panel was provided by the former senior chaplain in his
letter of 9 July 1996 as the original PRF reviewed by the USAFE MLEB and
Aggregate Board. Moreover, counsel has failed to provide a reaccomplished
PRF from the senior rater reflecting a “DP” recommendation and a supporting
statement from the USAFE MLEB president indicating the applicant’s
corrected record of performance was supplementally considered against those
records receiving a carry-over “DP” recommendation through the aggregate
process and the determination was made that it would have warranted a “DP”
recommendation. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we
find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this
application.
2. In view of our above finding, and since there has been no showing the
applicant was denied fair and equitable consideration for promotion, we
again find no basis upon which to recommend his direct promotion to the
grade of colonel through the correction of records process. As the
applicant has been previously advised, the AFBCMR observes that officers
compete for promotion under the whole person concept whereby a multitude of
factors are carefully assessed by the selection board members prior to
scoring the record. In addition, they may be qualified but, in the
judgment of selection board members vested with the discretionary authority
to score their records, may not be the best qualified of those available
for the limited number of promotion vacancies. Consequently, a direct
promotion should be granted only under extraordinary circumstances; i.e., a
showing that the officer’s record cannot be reconstructed in such a manner
so as to permit him/her to compete for promotion on a fair and equitable
basis; a showing that the officer exercised due diligent in pursuing timely
and effective relief; and lastly, that had the original errors not
occurred, the probability of his being selected for promotion would have
been extremely high. We do not find these factors in this case.
3. 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 additional 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-1995-03805
in Executive Session on 15 June 2007, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit EE. Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings,
w/atchs.
Exhibit FF. Letter, Counsel, dated 13 Jan 05.
Exhibit GG. Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Dec 05, w/atchs.
Exhibit HH. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 17 Mar 06.
Exhibit II. Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 27 Nov 06.
Exhibit JJ. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 8 Dec 06.
Exhibit KK. Letter, Counsel, dated 5 Jan 07, w/atchs.
THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
Chair
His record, to include a Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reflecting a "Definitely- Promote (DP) recommendation, be considered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) far promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the CY94 Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice to warrant that his record, to include the corrected Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 4 January 1989 and...
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-1992-02612-4
If the Board is concerned with the number of days of supervision, then he requests it be changed to 30 days.” In addition, any information documented on the OPR can be included on the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), since the PRF can include the member’s performance for his last 30 days. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice warranting his consideration for promotion by a Special Selection Board (SSB) beginning with the CY87...
The revised Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY96C Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board (P0596C), with a "Definitely Promote" recommendation, be accepted for file. DPPPEB stated that the applicant had a PRF for the CY94 Lieutenant Colonel Board upgraded to a 'DP" based upon the addition of new information to his record (OPR content change, duty title change and Air Force Commendation Medal updated). Based on the assessments provided by HQ AFPC/DPAISl and HQ AFPC/DPPPEB and...
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 | CY1999 | BC-1998-01060
Therefore, his achievements for the last six months and the most significant ones in his entire Air Force career were not documented anywhere in his Record of Performance (ROP) reviewed by the rater, LTC S--- , and the senior rater, Colonel P---, when they prepared his PRF. The applicant provides a letter from his senior rater dated four years after the 1989 Major Board. He recommends that the corrected PRF prepared by Colonel P--- be entered into the applicant’s record.
In summary, no senior rater, no MLRB President, no central selection board, and no -special selection board has ever reviewed his CY90 (1 year BPZ)"records that included the revised CY89 ( 2 year BPZ) PRF. Based on the SRR review of his PO589 PRF and subsequent upgrade, the applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for the CY89A Board. Based on upon a senior rater review (SRR) of his previous CY89 (1 5 May 89) lieutenant colonel...
Therefore, his achievements for the last six months and the most significant ones in his entire Air Force career were not documented anywhere in his Record of Performance (ROP) reviewed by the rater, LTC ---, and the senior rater, Colonel ---, when they prepared his PRF. The applicant provides a letter from his senior rater dated four years after the 1989 Major Board. He recommends that the corrected PRF prepared by Colonel --- be entered into the applicant’s record.
The Air Force officer promotion boards which considered his records for promotion were held in violation of statute, DoD Directive and Air Force regulations. DPPPA indicated that if the Board should grant the applicant’s request to receive SSB consideration by the CY93A central selection board, with a corrected Apr 93 OPR and CY93A (P0593A) PRF, the “corrected by” annotations on those reports (and any other corrected documents in his OSR) will be removed. In this respect, we note the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1995-00115
The Air Force officer promotion boards which considered his records for promotion were held in violation of statute, DoD Directive and Air Force regulations. DPPPA indicated that if the Board should grant the applicant’s request to receive SSB consideration by the CY93A central selection board, with a corrected Apr 93 OPR and CY93A (P0593A) PRF, the “corrected by” annotations on those reports (and any other corrected documents in his OSR) will be removed. In this respect, we note the...
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), reviewed by the Calendar Year 1991 Medical/Dental Corps (CY91 MC/DC) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. AFPC/DPPP does not believe the short time the senior rater was assigned to Air Base had any bearing on the senior rater’s assessment of the applicant’s overall promotion potential Applicant should have received a copy of the CY91 PRF at least 30 days prior to his promotion...