Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-1991-01818-2
Original file (BC-1991-01818-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied


                            ADDENDUM TO
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-1991-01818
            INDEX CODES:  131.01, 134.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His duty title of Commander, Headquarters Squadron Section, be  voided
from his records, and his records be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 30  Nov  93,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  the  applicant’s
application for correction of military records, in which he  requested
that his Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) closing 17  Apr  86,  17
Apr 87, and 17 Apr 88, be voided and removed  from  his  records;  his
nonselection for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel  be  set
aside; he  be  retroactively  promoted  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel; he be reinstated to active duty in the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel; and, the derogatory/unfavorable information contained in  his
records be deleted.  A complete copy of  the  Record  of  Proceedings,
with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

By application, dated 11 Oct 06, the applicant requested that his  OER
closing 17 Apr  87  be  voided  and  removed  from  his  records;  his
nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel be  set
aside; and he be retroactively promoted to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by a Special Selection Board, with back  pay  and  allowances.
These requests were examined by the Board’s staff and found  they  did
not meet the criteria  for  reconsideration  by  the  Board,  and  the
applicant was notified by letter on 17 May 07 (Exhibit J).

In addition to the above requests which were previously considered and
denied by the Board, the applicant also requested that his duty  title
of Commander,  Headquarters  Squadron  Section,  be  voided  from  his
records.  This request was not a part  of  his  original  application.
The applicant contends the duty title would not have been awarded  had
regulations been adhered to.  Dual assignment to  an  existing  Chief,
Base Administration position in the 6592 Air Base Group,  Los  Angeles
Air Force Base (AFB) should have been permitted.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPASBG recommends denial noting that duty titles  are  determined
by base leadership at the squadron, group and wing levels, and they do
not believe his duty title should be changed from  what  is  currently
archived.  AFPC/DPASBG indicated that they do not have access  to  the
verbiage in the  Commander,  Headquarters  Squadron  Section  nor  the
Chief, Base Administration duty titles to  determine  the  content  of
either.  Therefore, they cannot recommend a change from one duty title
to the other  without  knowing  what  duties  each  held,  along  with
compelling concurrence from the  commander,  who  denied  the  action,
indicating that it should indeed be changed.  Finally, they are not in
a position to question a commander for not double-billeting an officer
under his command for reasons that are not abundantly clear.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPASBG evaluation is at Exhibit K.

AFPC/DPPPO recommends denial  indicating  the  applicant's  appeal  to
remove a duty history title entry from 1986  should  be  dismissed  as
untimely.  His unreasonable delay regarding a matter now  dating  back
almost 20 years, is without adequate justification, and  a  waiver  of
the time limitation could unreasonably harm the government.

According to AFPC/DPPPO, central boards evaluate the entire  selection
record  to  include  the  promotion   recommendation   form,   officer
performance reports, officer effectiveness reports, training  reports,
letters of evaluation, decorations, and data on the officer  selection
brief (OSB).  The board members assess whole person  factors  such  as
job  performance,  professional  qualities,  breadth  of   experience,
leadership and  academic  and  professional  military  education  when
rendering their decision.  As such, they do not believe the  contested
duty title entry on his OSB caused his nonselection for  promotion  to
lieutenant colonel.

Based on AFPC/DPASBG's recommendation the applicant's  record  not  be
changed from what is currently archived, AFPC/DPPPO recommends  denial
for SSB consideration, we strongly recommend the board  find  that  it
would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay, and  deny
the application as untimely.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit L.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated the comments in the advisory opinions show a  lack
of expertise regarding Air Force regulations pertinent to the  use  of
military and civilian manpower.  Each is  apparently  unfamiliar  with
key  regulations  that  governed  Air  Force  and  civilian  personnel
utilization and associated assignment mandates.  This failure detracts
from the expectation of gaining the fair, objective  decision  outcome
promised by the Air Force.

There is a simple, straightforward expectation that any duty that  has
been voided from a military officer's record should not be included in
the evaluation of that officer's performance.  The Air Force indicated
it found no new and relevant information whereas  material  errors  of
fact remain due to oversight or error by the Air Force  in  the  past.
He is asking the Board  to  exercise  extraordinary  action  to  again
review this matter.  That an initial denial was erroneous is  obvious.
The Air Force has implied that a fair ruling was made in the past;  he
has yet to experience that fair ruling  and  no  clear  thinker  would
disagree.  Before he died this  year,  he  promised  his  90-year  old
father, a Navy veteran, that he would not give up in  seeking  justice
in this matter.  He believed that the Board would  ultimately  do  the
right thing.

Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit N.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s  request
that his duty title of Commander,  Headquarters  Squadron  Section  be
voided and his records be considered  by  an  SSB.   His  most  recent
submission was thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions  were  duly
noted.  However, we did not find his  assertions  and  the  supporting
documentation  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the   rationale
expressed by the Air Force offices of primary  responsibility  (OPRs).
Therefore, in the absence of evidence which shows to our  satisfaction
the  applicant’s  duty  title  was  erroneous,  we  agree   with   the
recommendation of the OPRs and adopt their rationale as the basis  for
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain  his  burden  of
establishing  he  has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an  injustice.
Accordingly, we conclude that no compelling basis exists to  recommend
favorable action on the applicant’s request.

2.  We noted the applicant requests that his OER closing 17 Apr 87  be
voided and removed from his records; his nonselections  for  promotion
to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  be  set  aside;  and  he   be
retroactively promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special
Selection  Board,  with  back  pay  and  allowances.   However,  these
requests  were  previously  examined  by  the  Board’s  staff  and   a
determination was made  that  they  did  not  meet  the  criteria  for
reconsideration.  We agree.   Accordingly,  the  applicant’s  requests
again are 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  AFBCMR  1991-01818  in
Executive Session on 8 Jan 08, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. John B. Hennessey, Panel Chair
      Mr. Joseph D. Yount, Member
      Ms. Teri G. Spoutz, Member

The following additional documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit H.  Record of Proceedings, dated 12 Jan 94,
                w/atchs.
    Exhibit I.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 06, w/atchs.
    Exhibit J.  Ltr, AFBCMR, dated 17 May 07.
    Exhibit K.  Ltr, AFPC/DPASBG, dated 31 Oct 07.
    Exhibit L.  Ltr, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 2 Nov 07.
    Exhibit M.  Ltr, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 Nov 07.
    Exhibit N.  Ltr, applicant, dated 5 Dec 07, w/atchs.




                                   JOHN B. HENNESSEY
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1991 | BC 1991 01818

    Original file (BC 1991 01818.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Reconsideration of Board’s previous decision for his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) closing 17 Apr 87 be declared void and removed from his records. The Air Force Military Personnel Center (AFMPC) approved the removal of his duty title, “Director of Family Support Center” in March 1987; however, a delay in its removal until 17 Mar 88 caused his OSR that met the 15 Jun 87 SSB and another 1987 regular promotion selection board held on 25 Nov 87 to be inaccurate. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102556

    Original file (0102556.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02556 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Selection Briefs (OSB) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Years (CY) 1996C (CY96C), 1997C (CY97C), 1998B (CY98B), 1999A (CY99A), 1999B (CY99B), and 2000A (CY00A) Central Lieutenant Colonel Boards, be corrected to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-02817

    Original file (BC-2005-02817.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    He was selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by SSB with an effective date of rank of 1 May 79. They note that the courts in Homer, supra, and Kreis v. Secretary of the Air Force, a case cited by the Homer court, have held that a request for retroactive promotion would constitute a nonjusticiable military personnel decision. Applicant seems to have forgotten that his records were corrected to provide him opportunity for promotion to lieutenant colonel at his request.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00189

    Original file (BC-2004-00189.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2004-00189 (CASE 2) INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1994A (CY94A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. On 1 Nov 01, the Board...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2007-01844

    Original file (BC-2007-01844.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant’s respective OPR and Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) contained the correct duty title as HH-60G Instructor pilot/Assistant Director of Operations, which the board members reviewed and took into consideration in evaluating his record. The DPPPO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant states that despite several attempts to correct his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200891

    Original file (0200891.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the Record of Proceedings is attached at Exhibit C. On 12 May 92, the Board considered and denied an application pertaining to the applicant, requesting that she be returned to active duty and promoted to the grade of major. On 15 May 95, the AFBCMR directed that her record be corrected, that she be returned to active duty, that she be promoted to major with a date of rank of 1 Sep 88, and that she not be considered nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel until...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02673

    Original file (BC-2007-02673.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2007-02673 INDEX CODES: 111.01, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2006C (CY06C) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB) be declared void and removed from her records, and the attached PRF be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-1990-01087-3

    Original file (BC-1990-01087-3.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    c. The OPR, closing out 28 November 1989, be amended to reflect a closing date of 18 October 1990. d. The Officer Performance Report (OPR), closing 20 June 1994, be amended by changing the statement, “Returned to MG with trepidation, but has met the challenge and is leading Medical Logistics to a new level,” to “Assumed duties, has met the challenge and is leading Medical Logistics to a new level.” e. His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected to reflect the duty title, “Commander,...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9701594

    Original file (9701594.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0200087

    Original file (0200087.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    ## Top Report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY01B (5 Nov 01) Lieutenant Colonel Board. He was selected for promotion to the grade of major and came back on active duty with a date of rank of 1 Nov 93. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice.