SECOND ADDENDUM TO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2005-03220
XXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His records be corrected to reflect he was promoted to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (O-5) by the Calendar Year 1985 (CY85) Lieutenant
Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB), and served on continuous active
duty in the permanent grade of lieutenant colonel through 31 Mar 97,
giving him 28 years of total active federal commissioned service
(TAFSC).
________________________________________________________________
RESUME OF CASE:
On 25 Apr 06, the Board considered and denied applicant’s original
request for direct promotion to lieutenant colonel and continuation on
active duty in that grade until 31 Mar 97. In the initial case, he
contended that because his promotion to major, which resulted from his
appeals to the AFBCMR, was not effected until many years after his
retirement, he was never afforded the opportunity to serve as a major
and build a record in that grade, and, as such, there was no avenue
for him to equitably compete for promotion to lieutenant colonel. For
an accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
applicant’s original request and the rationale of the earlier decision
by the Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit L.
On 6 Nov 06, the applicant submitted a letter with two attachments
outlining his objections to the ROP in his original case (Exhibit M).
He contended the ROP contained erroneous statements, factual errors,
and did not even come close to summarizing his remarks and the new
evidence he provided. He also argued the Board erroneously attributed
several delays to him, relying on an erroneous HQ ARPC/JA advisory.
As a result, he was not given a fair, impartial, and accurate
evaluation by the Board because they relied on flawed information in
the ROP.
In view of these concerns, and to preclude the possibility of the
perception of an injustice, the applicant was granted de novo
consideration of his case by the Board and, on 10 Jan 07, the de novo
Board considered and denied his request. For an accounting of the
facts and circumstances surrounding the rationale of the decision by
the Board, see the Addendum to the ROP at Exhibit N.
In his latest submission, dated 6 Sep 09, the applicant requests
reconsideration of his case based upon new evidence comprised of
additional statements from former members of his chain of command
which attest to his promotion potential beyond the grade of major and
provide perspectives on those important aspects of his case that he
believes Air Force officials, in their advisories, failed to
adequately address and fairly consider. He argues that as a result of
these unfair and incorrect advisories, the AFBCMR members did not
receive, nor have at their disposal, accurate information upon which
to make a decision in his case. In support of his latest submission,
the applicant provides an expanded statement, copies of three
supporting statements, and copies of three SAF/MRB directives related
to apparently similar AFBCMR cases.
The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit
O.
________________________________________________________________
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. While we find the additional statements
rendered in the applicant’s behalf new, we do not find them relevant.
As the applicant has been previously advised, reconsideration is
provided only where newly discovered relevant evidence if 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.
________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified the additional evidence presented did not
meet the criteria for reconsideration by the Board; 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 the applicant’s request
for reconsideration of AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2005-03220 in
Executive Session on 15 Feb 11, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Panel Chair
Ms. XXXXXXXXXX, Member
Mr. XXXXXXXXXX, Member
The following additional documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit N. Addendum to ROP, dated 25 Jan 07, w/atchs.
Exhibit O. Letter, Applicant, dated 9 Sep 09, w/atchs.
XXXXXXXXXX
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03220A
Additional AFBCMR applications resulted in the applicant’s record being corrected, on 25 Feb 04, to show he was tendered a Regular appointment effective 8 Feb 81, and that he served in the grade of major until his retirement in that grade on 1 Jul 93. The ROP contained factual errors and did not even come close to summarizing his remarks and the new evidence he provided. The record contains a letter dated January 15, 2003, to applicant from AFPC/DPOC informing him that as a result of his...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-1993-06923A2
The applicant’s case was denied (Exhibit N). In addition to the amended requests as indicated above, counsel discusses the issues relative to the applicant’s case being remanded by the court. __________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Pursuant to the Board’s request AFPC/DPPPE provided an evaluation of the issue of whether the additional rater on the applicant’s May 86 OER violated AFR 36-10.
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1996-01804-3
Counsel submitted statements (and other attachments) from senior officers familiar with the applicant’s career who essentially contended the applicant’s record was so strong he would have been promoted if his record had been correct when first considered by the central selection boards. Statements were provided from three individuals (two retired brigadier generals, and a retired colonel), who indicated they were in the applicant’s chain of command and endorsed his direct promotion based on...
AF | BCMR | CY1991 | BC 1991 01818
Reconsideration of Boards 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 | CY2004 | BC-1997-01581A
On 18 Mar 99, an enlisted member’s spouse recorded a telephone conversation between herself and the applicant, which implied that the applicant had expressed interest in a sexual relationship. On 21 Mar 94, the additional rater met with the rater, the applicant and his wife. The Addendum ROP is provided at Exhibit N. In the latest request for reconsideration, the applicant’s counsel provides a statement from the additional rater, who alleges the meeting with the reviewer was generated...
On 12 Jul 95, the Board considered and denied his request for reconsideration (Exhibit N). On 22 Dec 98, the AFBCMR responded to the general’s letter (Exhibit P) and the applicant’s case was forwarded for reconsideration of his appeal. Applicant’s numerous assertions that the reviewer of the contested OER was unduly influenced by the rater’s last statement on the contested report regarding his promotion potential which resulted in his receiving a “2” rating are duly noted.
AF | BCMR | CY1981 | BC 1981 01237
As he was considered and denied promotion to lieutenant colonel (Lt Col) by selection boards in 1974, 1975, and 1976, he submitted a second application requesting his non-selects to Lt Col be set aside, his DOR to major be changed to its former date of 24 Feb 71, and his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) for the period ending 31 Jul 75 be changed to reflect a more favorable review by the Indorsing Official. Notwithstanding the previous reconsiderations for promotion the applicant had been...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03220
A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/JA recommends denial and notes that, contrary to the suggestion by the applicant, he was offered an opportunity to request reinstatement to active duty as a major and he obviously opted for the alternative that awarded him service credit for those years without his having to actually return to active duty. In this particular case, the applicant, who was awarded retroactive service credit for the more than 12 years his record...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1992-01342-2
The AFBCMR Staff assumed the applicant was referring to his most recent case (BC-2004-02624), which was denied on 27 Dec 04, and in a letter dated 3 May 06 (Exhibit K), requested he provide copies of documents he alluded to his 14 Feb 06 submission. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: After reviewing the applicant’s latest submissions, a majority of the Board reconsidered his appeal but found the documentation insufficient to...
AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1993-06923C
Counsel also notes that several General officers supported the applicant’s request for a higher level endorsement on the OER and stated that the lack of higher endorser support indicated by the OER led to the applicant’s pass over for promotion to major. Counsel considers AFPC/DPPPE’s response fallacious when they indicated that OERs are one aspect of a record to the question of whether the continued presence of the OERs closing in 1986 in the applicant’s record make any difference to the...