RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-00141 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her non-selections to the grade of major (0-4) be removed from 
her records in order to be hired into the Air Force Reserve 
(AFR). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The recruiting process took too long, impeading her ability to 
complete Squadron Officer School (SOS) prior to promotion 
consideration and the only way she can now be hired into the AFR 
is if the two previous non-selections for promotion to major are 
removed from her records. 

 

In May 08, the Department of the Navy employed her as a civilian, 
and in Jun 08, she was working with the AFR in hopes of securing 
a Reserve slot with the 301st Wing. A general she knew was 
working with the local USAFR recruiters to hire her and attach 
her to the medical squadron. However, through no fault of her 
own, the process was not completed in a timely manner. 

 

She attempted to register for SOS by correspondence in 
preparation of her next promotion. However, her request was 
denied due to her status as an “inactive reservist.” The process 
to be gained into the AFR continued to progress extremely slowly 
during a 24 month timeframe (Jun 08 – May 10). 

 

On 28 May 10, she received an unexpected certified letter 
notifying her of being twice deferred for promotion to the grade 
of major. She was not informed that she was being considered for 
promotion while in an “inactive” reserve status. After 
contacting ARPC, she was informed that there is no requirement 
for officers to be notified of promotion boards through certified 
mail or otherwise. Without knowing she was meeting promotion 
boards, she had no way of communicating her situation to the 
board; therefore, she was caught in a catch-22. 

 

The medical squadron commander has been actively engaged with the 
wing commander in trying to gain her over the last two years so 
that she can fill a much-needed position. She enrolled in SOS 
after discovering she was eligible to do so through her civil 
service position. If her recruiter is allowed to continue to 


work on gaining her into the medical unit and she successfully 
completes SOS, she believes she will successfully be promoted to 
major. 

 

In support of her request, the applicant provides letters of 
support. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently in the Individual Ready Reserve in the 
grade of captain (0-3). She was discharged on 19 Aug 07 due to 
her two non-selects. 

 

Additional relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force. Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts 
in this Record of Proceedings. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

ARPC/DPB recommends denial. DPB states the applicant was 
considered but not selected for promotion by the CY09 Non-
participating Reserve (NPR) Major Line and Health Professions 
Promotion Board and the CY10 NPR Major Line and Health 
Professions Board. DPB also states that Title 10 USC, Section 
14301 (10 USC 14301), requires that all officers on the Reserve 
Active Status List (RASL) must be considered for promotion when 
eligible. The member’s non-selection letter and attachment 
listing the effects of non-selection would have also been sent to 
the address reflected in the Military Personnel Data System 
(MilPDS); however, there was no record to verify her address in 
MilPDS in Nov 08 or Nov 09, approximately when the convening 
letters for each board would have been mailed. DPB notes that 
there were no errors in the applicant’s record when it met the 
promotion boards. She will be discharged IAW current laws and 
regulations. The applicant does not provide any evidence that 
the board’s recommendations were in any way unfair or unjust. 

 

The ARPC/DPB complete evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 


 

The applicant responded by reiterating her original contentions; 
however, she disagrees with the fact analysis of the advisory 
opinion. The following areas are her main rebuttal points: 

 

 a. The advisory does not address the main issue, which is 
the extreme amount of time it takes to gain a member into the 
Reserve that resulted in her inability to complete SOS and be 
selected to major during the promotion boards. 

 

 b. The number of captains promoted is one in the NPR, which 
makes the chances of her being selected miniscule without 
completion of the required PME. As a result, the system unfairly 
impedes health professionals who separate after their initial 4-
year commitment from successfully activating in the Reserves 
without beginning the process immediately upon separating from 
active duty because the time clock is less than someone who 
separates as a 1LT (0-2) or early captain. 

 

 c. She did due diligence in attempting to be gained by the 
AFR; however, despite her efforts she did not receive the proper 
assistance from the recruiter and believes this to be the primary 
reason for her being discharged. One reason for the lack of 
assistance seems to be that the recruiters do not receive the 
same credit in gaining her as they would a non-health 
professional. 

 

 d. As mentioned in her original contention, military 
suicides have continually risen over the last several years. For 
this reason, now is not the time to discharge mental health 
professionals permanently. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was time filed. 

 

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 office of primary responsibility and adopt its 
rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has 
not been the victim of an error or injustice. We note the 
applicant’s assertions that she exercised due diligence and that 


through no fault of her own the slow hiring process prevented her 
completion of SOS prior to meeting the contested promotion 
boards, which in turn caused her promotion non-selections. 
However, we find no evidence that she has been treated any 
differently than other officers who are similarly situated. In 
accordance with 10 USC 14301, all officers on the RASL must be 
considered for promotion when eligible. In addition, she was 
discharged in accordance with law, as implemented by governing 
instruction, as a result of her two promotion non-selections. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 Docket 
Number BC-2011-00141 in Executive Session on 19 Jul 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 11, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPB, dated 16 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair