a.  Second  lieutenant  (2Lt)  as  13  May  02,  rather  than 

c.  Captain (Capt) as 13 May 06, rather than 19 Mar 07.   

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

b.  First  lieutenant  (1Lt)  as  13  May  04,  rather  than 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2011-03684 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
   
 
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
His  promotion  dates  for  the  following  grades  be  corrected  as 
follows: 
 
 
19 Mar 03. 
 
 
19 Mar 05. 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The  Air  Force  Personnel  Center  (AFPC)  corrected  his  records  to 
reflect  his  promotion  date  to  1Lt  as  13  May  04.    However,  on 
23 Sep  10,  AFPC  notified  him  that  an  audit  of  captain  officer 
records scheduled to meet the December 2010 Majors board resulted 
in an issue with his dates of rank and they were recalculated to 
reflect his DOR to 2Lt as 19 Mar 03 rather than 13 May 02, 1Lt as 
19  Mar  05 rather than 13 May 05, and Capt as 19 Mar 07 rather 
than  13  May  06.    The  changes  to  his  DORs  by  the  Air  Force 
Personnel  Center  (APFC)  in  2004  has  resulted  in  a  delay  in 
promotion of 10 months for each grade, delayed his promotion to 
major,  created  a  financial  debt,  and  has  affected  his  past  and 
future income potential.   
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  provides  an  expanded 
statement  and  copies  of  leave  and  earnings  statements  (LES), 
reports  extracted  from  the  Military  Personnel  Data  System 
(MilPDS),  case  management  system  (CMS)  reports,  and  two 
supporting statements. 
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit A. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
On 26 Jan 04, the applicant entered active duty as a 2Lt with a 
DOR of 13 May 02.  He was promoted to 1Lt on 13 May 04 and Capt 
on 13 May 06.  An audit of the 2002 year group records resulted 
in the applicant’s DORs being adjusted to reflect:  2Lt as 19 Mar 
03, 1Lt as 19 Mar 05, and Capt as 19 Mar 07.  He is currently 
serving on active duty in the rank of Capt. 
 
According  to  information  provided  by  the  applicant,  these 
adjustments to his DORs resulted in a debt to the government in 
the  amount  of  $14,685.23,  which  was  subsequently  waived  by  the 
Defense Office of Hearing and Appeals. 
 
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
described in the letters prepared by the appropriate offices of 
the Air Force, which are at Exhibits C, D, and E. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AFPC/DPSIPV recommends denial, indicating the applicant’s DOR was 
originally  established  incorrectly  by  AFPC  and  corrected  in 
accordance with the provisions of AFI 36-2604, Service Dates and 
Dates of Rank.  An audit of officer records to meet the 2002 year 
group Major Promotion Board revealed the applicant received too 
much credit for the time he was in the Educational Delay Program; 
as  a  result,  his  promotion  dates  to  2Lt,  1Lt,  and  Capt  were 
adjusted.  While the applicant indicates that had he known of the 
effects  on  his  DOR,  he  would  have  remained  in  the  Reserve  for 
another four months, the needs of the Air Force determine when a 
member  comes  on  to  active  duty  and  staying  in  the  Inactive 
Reserves may not have been an option for the applicant.  
 
The  complete  AFPC/DPSIPV  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit C. 
 
AFPC/DPSOO  notes  they  do  not  calculate  initial  DORs  to  2Lt.  
Based on the applicant’s original DOR to Capt, he was eligible to 
meet  the  Calendar  Year  2010  (CY10D)  Major  Central  Selection 
Board.    However,  on  11 Aug  10,  the  Service  Dates  Verification 
Branch notified DPSOO that an audit conducted on the records of 
the 2002 year group revealed the initial DOR to 2Lt on at least 
200 individuals were miscalculated, thus changing many officers’ 
eligibility  to  major.    In  the  applicant’s  case,  his  DORs  were 
adjusted  accordingly.    Based  on  his  new  DOR  to  Capt,  he  was 
ineligible  for  promotion  consideration  by  the  CY10D  board; 
however, he is now meeting the CY11D major board.  
 
The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. 
 

AFPC/JA  recommends  denial  noting  the  applicant  has  not 
established  that  an  error  occurred  when  his  dates  of  rank  were 
corrected.  The applicant further believes that an injustice has 
occurred  and  will  continue  to  occur  since  the  Air  Force 
incorrectly  calculated  his  initial  DOR  in  2004.    The  applicant 
has failed to establish any injustice.  The Federal courts have 
consistently  defined  "injustice"  within  the  meaning  of  10  USC 
1552  as  that  behavior  or  action  that  rises  to  the  level  that 
"shocks the conscious."  See Sawyer v. United States, 18 Ct. Cl. 
800  (1989).    JA  further  notes  this  is  a  high  standard  which 
requires more than merely deciding that an action taken might be 
viewed as unfair or which has had arguably adverse consequences.  
The Air Force has the right--and an obligation--to correct errors 
such  as  those  that  occurred  in  the  applicant’s  case;  and  the 
applicant is not being treated differently than the other airmen 
whose  records  were  also  corrected.    The  applicant  has  not 
provided  any  evidence  that  he  was  treated  differently  than  the 
other  airmen  similarly  situated  in  the  2002  year  group.    In 
addition,  one  of  his  reasons  he  cites  to  support  his  claim  of 
injustice  has  been  mooted  by  the  fact  that  the  Defense  Finance 
and Accounting Service (DFAS) has since waived the monies he owed 
the government. 
 
The complete AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit E. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  13  Jan  12,  for  review  and  comment  within  30  days 
(Exhibit  F).    As  of  this  date,  this  office  has  received  no 
response. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
AF/JAA recommends denial noting the applicant did not suffer an 
error  or  injustice  as  defined  by  the  Federal  courts.    If  the 
applicant’s, DORs were changed back and he was promoted through 
an  SSB,  it  may  have  ramifications  for  him  when  he  meets  the 
lieutenant  colonel's  board  as  he  will  have  a  shorter  amount  of 
time between promotions.  This may lay open the possibility that 
if  he  does  not  get  promoted  in  the  future,  he  may  request  the 
Board to readjust his DORs back to the (erroneous) dates.  The 
Board  should  consider  before  granting  relief  that  all  other 
similarly situated officers may be entitled to similar relief.   
 
The complete AF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit G. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 11 Jun 12, for review and comment within 30 days (Exhibit H).  
As of this date, this office has received no response. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
 
3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  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 AF/JAA 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. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 
 
The  applicant  be  notified  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  an  error  or  an  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-2011-03684 in Executive Session on 24 Apr 12 and 12 Jul 
12, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 
 
 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

The  following  documentary  evidence  pertaining  to  AFBCMR  Docket 
Number BC-2011-03684 was considered: 
 
   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Sep 11, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPSIPV, dated 20 Oct 11, w/atchs. 
   Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 5 Dec 11. 
   Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 6 Jan 12. 
   Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 13 Jan 12. 
   Exhibit G.  Letter, AF/JAA, dated 7 Jun 12. 
   Exhibit H.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 11 Jun 12. 
 
 
 
 
   
 

Panel Chair