Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2005-03220
Original file (BC-2005-03220.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                             SECOND ADDENDUM TO
                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS






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



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



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 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.

                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2007 | BC-2005-03220A

    Original file (BC-2005-03220A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-1993-06923A2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-1996-01804-3.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    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 | CY2004 | BC-1997-01581A

    Original file (BC-1997-01581A.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9103049

    Original file (9103049.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC 1981 01237.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-2005-03220.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-1992-01342-2.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    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

    Original file (BC-1993-06923C.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    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...