THIRD ADDENDUM 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 
DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2002-01061-3 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
1.  He  be  given  a  date  of  rank  to  coincide  with  the  date  he 
pinned on lieutenant colonel (Lt Col). 
 
2.  His  military  career  be  made  whole  again  as  though  the  1975 
error in his record had not occurred. 
 
3.  He be directly promoted to the grade of colonel. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On  7  Nov  79,  the  Board  considered  and  partially  granted  an 
application (BC-1979-02340) in which the applicant's records were 
corrected to show:  
 
1. His Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs) closing 31 Dec 75 and 
30 Apr 76 were voided and removed from his records. 
 
2.  His  non-selections  to  the  temporary  grade  of  Lt  Col  by  the 
selection  boards  convening  on  21  Aug  78  and  20  Aug  79  be  set 
aside;  that  he  be  considered  as  a  first-time  eligible  for 
promotion  to  the  temporary  grade  of  Lt  Col  by  a  supplemental 
selection board (SSB), and if selected, that he be given the date 
of rank (DOR) he would have received had he been selected by the 
21 Aug 78 selection board. 
 
After  the  applicant's  records  were  corrected,  he  was 
retroactively promoted to the grade of Lt Col in June 1983 and he 
was  given  a  DOR  as  though  he  was  selected  by  his  original 
selection board.  
 
By  application,  dated  23  Mar  02,  the  applicant  requested  his 
records be corrected to reflect that he was continued on active 
duty until August 1991, which would have enabled him to obtain a 
28-year Lt Col career; or that he was directly promoted to the 
grade of colonel and continued on active duty until August 1993, 
which would have given him a full 30-year career. On 17 Sep 03, 
the  Board  denied  the  applicant's  request.  For  an  accounting  of 

the facts and the rationale of the earlier Board decision, please 
see the record of proceedings at Exhibit I. 
On  20  Feb  04,  the  applicant  requested  reconsideration  (Exhibit 
J); however, on 27 Feb 04, he was advised that his evidence did 
not meet the criteria for reconsideration (Exhibit K). 
 
On 29 Apr 04, the applicant appealed to the Secretary of the Air 
Force; however, the case was deferred to the AFBCMR. On 24 May 
04, the applicant was again advised that his request did not meet 
the criteria for reconsideration (Exhibit L). 
 
By  letter,  dated  6  Sep  05,  the  applicant  requested 
reconsideration  of  his  appeal  (Exhibit  M).    However,  on  27  Jun 
06, the Board denied his request (Exhibit N). 
 
By application, dated 12 Jan 08, the applicant requested that his 
military  career  be  made  whole  as  though  the  1975  error  in  his 
record had not occurred (Exhibit 0). 
 
On  7  Jul  08,  the  applicant  requested  that  his  case  be 
administratively closed (Exhibit P).  On 19 Aug 08, the case was 
administratively closed (Exhibit Q). 
 
By  letter,  received  22  Feb  10,  the  applicant  requests  for 
reconsideration  and  his  appeal  was  reopened.    In  his  current 
submission, the applicant contends his promotion to the grade of 
Lt  Col  and  errors  in  his  OSR  caused  an  error  that  ended  any 
future career progression. 
 
The  applicant's  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit R. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ  AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  denial  and  states  the  case  should  be 
dismissed as untimely. 
 
DPPPO states it is not unusual for an officer to be promoted by 
an  SSB  with  a  retroactive  date  of  rank  that  makes  them 
immediately  eligible  for  the  next  higher  grade.  In  addition, 
there  are  instances  where  the  AFBCMR  grants  time  to  build  a 
competitive record.  DPPPO further states, this is not something 
that  is  recommended  in  their  advisories,  but  a  type  of  relief 
that falls within the purview of the AFBCMR. 
 
Further,  effective  1  Jul  81,  AF  Form  705,  Lt  Col  Promotion 
Recommendation  Reports, were no longer submitted when OERs were 
prepared.  Had  the  applicant  remained  on  active  duty,  it  is 
 
 
 

2 

possible  that  he  would  have  built  a  competitive  record  for 
promotion  and  been  promoted  in  post  Calendar  Year  (CY)  1983 
boards.  However, he voluntarily retired on 1 Apr 84.  There is 
no evidence to suggest the applicant would have been a selectee 
by the CY83 colonel board. 
 
The complete DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit R. 
 
HQ  AFPC/DPSIDEP  recommends  five  of  the  applicant's  OERs  be 
corrected to reflect the rank of Lt Col. 
 
The following OERs should have been corrected: 
 
l. 30 Dec 78 through 29 Dec 79 
2. 30 Dec 79 through 25 Jul 80 
3. 26 Jul 80 through 16 Dec 80 
4. 17 Dec 80 through 16 Dec 81 
5. 17 Dec 81 through 28 Oct 82 
 
The complete DPSIDEP evaluation is at Exhibit S. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
DPPPO  ignores  the  facts  and  states  there  was  no  error.  This 
contradicts  their  own  advisory  where  they  admit  there  are 
instances where the AFBCMR grants time for officers, in similar 
situations,  to  build  a  competitive  record  so  they  can  fairly 
compete for promotion.  
 
The  documents  provided  all  substantiate  errors  and  injustices. 
The  first  error  was  in  the  70's  and  created  the  second  error 
which  caused  him  to  not  have  the  opportunity  to  compete  for 
promotion to the grade of colonel with Lt Col records. 
 
Both DPPPO and DPSIDEP are wrong with regard to the AF Form 705. 
Since he was still a major at the time, he had no AF Forms 705 in 
his record. The five missing AF Forms 705 may have been the most 
important  documents  in  his  records  ensuring  promotion.  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  three  OERs  that 
required AF Forms 705 had three star general indorsements.  The 
last five OERs in his Officer Selection Record (OSR) as seen by 
the  FY83  Colonel  Central  Selection  Board  (CSB)  are  incorrect; 
however, he agrees with the suggested changes by AFPC. There are 
other equally important errors that still exist, i.e., job title, 
job  description,  assignment  recommendations,  social  security 
number  suffix indicating "Reserve" officer instead of "Regular" 
officer, the rater and indorser comments of "promote to Lt Col" 
 
 
 

3 

and 

make 

should 

responsibility 

instead of "promote to colonel", the statement "augment into the 
Regular Air Force," since he would already be in the Regular Air 
Force as a Lt Col, and the addition of the missing AF Forms 705. 
The  grade  change  alone  would  only  weaken  his  records  and  be  a 
setback  in  his  effort  to  correct  his  record.  Had  the  "time  to 
build a competitive record" been addressed correctly by the Air 
Force  office  of  primary  responsibility  in  his  earlier 
application,  he  would  have  had  the  option  of  continuing  his 
career and building a competitive record as a new Lt Col.  Making 
that  recommendation  is  the  responsibility  of  HQ  AFPC  and  it 
should not have been left up to the AFBCMR to do HQ AFPC's work. 
HQ 
that 
recommendation. 
 
He was the top 17 percent of all major officers with four OERS in 
his OSR with three star general officer indorsements. One should 
conclude that he would have been very competitive with 50 percent 
of the eligible officers being promoted to colonel.  
 
Proof of his intent to continue his career is the fact that he 
withdrew  his  approved  retirement  application  when  he  was 
retroactively promoted by the SSB. Continuing active duty until 
the 28 or 30-year point would be a reasonable solution to correct 
the  injustice.  His  chain  of  command  and  the  senior  personnel 
director provide facts fully supporting this application.  
 
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 not it was discoverable at the 
time  of  any  previous  application.    However,  since  no  new  and 
relevant evidence has been provided by the applicant, we find the 
request does not meet the criteria for reconsideration.  As the 
applicant  has  been  previously  advised,  reconsideration  is 
provided  only  where  newly  discovered  relevant  evidence  is 
presented  which  was  not  available  when  the  application  was 
submitted.  Further, the reiteration of facts we have previously 
addressed,  uncorroborated  personal  observations,  or  additional 
arguments on the evidence of record are not adequate grounds for 
reopening a case.   
 
Therefore,  in  view  of  the  above  and  in  the  absence  of  new  and 
relevant evidence, we find no basis to reconsider the applicant’s 
request. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 

AFPC 

accept 

4 

 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The applicant be notified that the additional evidence presented 
did not meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board; 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-2002-01061  in  Executive  Session  on  19  Aug  11,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The following documentary evidence was as considered: 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 
Exhibit N.  Addendum(s) to Record of Proceedings, dated 
           29 Sep 03 and 17 Jul 06, w/exhibits. 
    Exhibit O.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 08 w/atchs. 
    Exhibit P.  Letter, Applicant, dated 7 Jul 08. 
    Exhibit Q.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 19 Aug 08. 
    Exhibit R.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 12 May 08. 
    Exhibit S.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIDEP, dated 24 Apr 08. 
    Exhibit T.  Letter, Applicant, dated 5 Feb 10. 
    Exhibit U.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 May 11. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
Acting Panel Chair 

  
  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 

5