RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03049
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Education/Training Report rendered for the period 23 Feb 89
16 May 90 be revised and he be given Special Selection Board
(SSB) consideration.
________________________________________________________________
THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His AF Form 475, Education/Training Report, contains clerical
errors. The terms satisfactory, average and good, is
contradictory to his status as the #1 graduate in his class,
resulting in him being less competitive for promotion.
He was the #1 graduate from his Fixed Wing Qualification
Training (FWQT) class and his training report should have
reflected his correct graduate status.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his
AF Form 475, dated 16 May 90; a letter from his former FWQT
Flight Commander, dated 13 Aug 10, and Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09)
Reserve Colonels Board Results.
The applicants complete submission, with attachments, is at
Exhibit A.
________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant, while serving as a captain was rendered a
Training Report (TR) for the period 23 Feb 89 through 16 May 90.
He was promoted to the grade of major by the in-the-promotion
zone (IPZ) Calendar Year 1994A (CY94A) Central Selection Board
(CSB). He was considered and non-selected to the grade of
lieutenant colonel below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) CY097C
Lieutenant Colonel CSB.
The applicant separated from active duty on 23 Oct 97.
________________________________________________________________
THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, stating, in part, that there is no
evidence that the report was unjust or inaccurate. They note
the training was completed over 20 years ago. Although, the
applicant has provided a memorandum from his former flight
commander at the time, it states that he only provided inputs to
the applicants draft TR before sending it to leadership for
signature. However, in accordance with the governing
instruction, it is at the discretion of the evaluator who is
designated to sign as the evaluator on the TR to determine what
is placed on the evaluation. Even though the flight commander
provided input, it is not mandatory for the evaluator to use the
inputs provided.
In addition, they note, to successfully challenge the validity
of an evaluation report, it is important to hear from the
evaluators, not necessarily for support, but for
clarification/explanation. The applicant has not provided such
documentation. Without this, they concluded the TR is accurate
as written.
The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. They note their recommendation to
deny SSB consideration is based on DPSIDs recommendation to
deny a change to the TR. In addition, given the unlikelihood of
success on the merits, they 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.
The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D.
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 5 Nov 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As
of this date, no response has been received by this office
(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 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 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 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 the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 Docket
Number BC-2010-03049 in Executive Session on 28 April 2011,
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 10, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 4 Oct 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 14 Oct 10.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 10.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04491
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID does not provide a recommendation. Therefore, the board members were aware that he had completed his dissertation and the requirements for the PhD Degree. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered Docket Number BC- 2010-04491 in Executive Session on 23 Aug 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: Panel...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-00810
He accomplished a thorough review of his records prior to the O- 5 promotion board and the DG information was not in his records. DPSID states the applicant’s contested training report (TR) was signed by the evaluator on 5 January 2000 and has been a matter of record in the Automated Records Management System (ARMS) and the Officer Selection Record (OSR) since its filing date which was prior to the convening date of the applicable Central Selection Board (CSB) the applicant is contesting. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02732
As such, the applicant could have written a letter to the board advising it of the error in his duty information and what should have been the correct organization. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request that his CY07A OSB be corrected to reflect award of the AFAM, 1OLC, and his corrected record, to include the AFAM, 1OLC citation and the AF Form 475 closing 16 Feb 05, be considered by an SSB. It...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04015
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04015 COUNSEL: NO HEARING DESIRED: YES ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His records be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 2010A (CY10A) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Central Selection Board (CSB) with inclusion of his Officer Performance Report...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-02096
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-02096 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 23 November 2001 through 22 November 2002 be accepted for file in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) in place of the AF Form 77, Supplement Evaluation Sheet, rendered for the period 23...
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a response which is attached at Exhibit E. Applicant also provided a response which is attached at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. However, since the AF Form 77 which indicated the applicant’s completion of...
AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-03165
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) and the United States Central Command Air Forces (USCENTAF) failed to update his duty history to reflect his command in Baghdad from 19 Apr to 30 Jun 03, even though he held the position for more than sixty days. A review of the OPRs included in the applicants record for the CY06A Board, reflect overall ratings of meets standards. The applicant has six...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-01396
1 The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits B thru C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to substitute his contested PRF with the revised PRF. The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for...
AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-01553
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air Force, which are attached at Exhibits C, D and E. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPAMN notes no BCMR action is warranted for the OSB reflecting board certified “no” for the 1 Dec 09 promotion board because the applicant did not submit the AF Form 2096 prior to the convening of the board. ...
AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2008-01896
The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation, with attachment, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were sent to the applicant on 29 Aug 08 for review and comment within 30 days. Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 6 Aug 08, w/atchs. Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Aug 08.