AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 
IN THE MATTER OF:    
 

    

 

 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2012-00029 
COUNSEL: NONE 
HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 
__________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
He  be  promoted  to  the  grade  of  major  (O-4)  with  a  date  of  rank 
(DOR) commensurate with the 1982 United States Air Force Academy 
(USAFA) year group with all appropriate back pay and allowances.   
 
__________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The selection board illegally used the lack of a Master’s Degree 
on his record as an absolute requirement and definitive deciding 
factor to eliminate his record without equal, fair, and unbiased 
evaluation  amongst  his  peers  on  merit  of  his  promotion  record.  
The  entire  board  did  not  consider  his  record  in  accordance  with 
Title 10, United States Code (USC), Section 616(c); and, the board 
violated  the  finding,  certification,  and  report  requirements  of 
Federal Statute Title 10, USC, Section 617.   
 
In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of a Class 
Action Complaint against the United States by former officers of 
the  United  States  Air  Force  (USAF)  and  on  the  behalf  of  others 
similarly situated.   
 
The  applicant’s  complete  submission,  with  attachment,  is  at 
Exhibit A.   
 
__________________________________________________________________ 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
 
The applicant is currently serving in the Air National Guard on an 
active  duty  tour  in  the  rank  of  major  (O-4).    While  earlier 
serving  in  the  Regular  Air  Force,  he  was  considered  and 
nonselected  for  promotion  to  major  by  the  Calendar  Year  1992C 
(CY92C) (Below the Primary Zone), CY93B (In the Primary Zone), and 
CY94A  (Above  the  Primary  Zone)  promotion  selection  boards.    The 
Memorandum  of  Instruction  (MOI)  used  at  these  boards  included 
language that cautioned the board members to use the “whole person 
concept” in assessing factors like advanced education and to not 
give disproportionate weight to the mere fact that an officer had 
completed advanced education.   
 

 
 

The  remaining  relevant  facts,  extracted  from  the  applicant’s 
military service records, are contained in the evaluations by the 
Air Force offices or primary responsibility at Exhibits C and D.   
 
__________________________________________________________________ 
 
AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
 
AFPC/PB  recommends  denial.    PB  states  the  applicant  offers 
absolutely no proof of his claim that the board used the lack of a 
Master’s Degree as an absolute requirement and definitive deciding 
factor  to  eliminate  his  record.    The  Secretary  of  the  Air  Force 
(SECAF) MOI for each board contains clear guidance regarding the 
treatment  of  advanced  academic  education.    A  review  of  the 
statistical  summary  involving  selection  rates  from  these  boards 
reflects  a  significant  number  of  officers  promoted  with  no 
advanced  degrees.    In  fact,  over  60  percent  (545  of  903)  of 
officers without advanced degrees were selected for promotion to 
major on the CY93 board (his “In the Primary Zone” consideration). 
The  promotion  boards  complied  with  all  governing  directives  and 
SECAF  guidance.    There  is  absolutely  no  evidence  to  support  his 
claim.   
 
The complete PB evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.   
 
AFPC/JA  recommends  denial.    JA  states  they  recommend  this 
application  be  denied  as  untimely.    The  promotion  boards  about 
which the applicant complains occurred some 18-20 years ago.  He 
states that the discovery of his claim is 5 January 2011, yet he 
offers no explanation as to how or why he picked that date.  They 
submit  he  probably  picked  that  date  as  the  time  when  he  was 
provided the theory and “evidence” he has offered.  The applicant 
obviously  knew  about  the  outcome  and  procedures  used  at  his 
promotion boards at the time they were held, or at least he could 
have known had he bothered to seek information at that time.  The 
law  is  clear  that  ignorance  of  the  factual  or  legal  basis  of  a 
claim is no bar to application of a limitation period.  Nor is the 
fact that within the statutory period for filing, the claimant may 
have had no theory to support the alleged claim until provided by 
some other person(s).  Absent any explanation whatsoever as to why 
the  applicant  waited  so  long  to  file  his  application  or  why  the 
AFBCMR  should  find  it  in  the  interest  of  justice  to  waive  the 
three-year  filing  requirement,  they  strongly  urge  the  Board  to 
deny this application as untimely.   
 
In regard to the merits of this case, the applicant has failed to 
provide material evidence of any error or injustice.  As noted by 
AFPC/PB in its advisory, the applicant has offered no evidence to 
support  his  first  allegation  regarding  the  lack  of  a  Master’s 
Degree in his record, notwithstanding that the burden of proof in 
a BCMR application is on the applicant to prove a probable error 
or injustice.  The PB advisory also explains the MOI used at the 
challenged promotion boards rebut the applicant’s claim.   
 

2 

 
 

In  support  of  his  second  allegation  (that  his  promotion  boards 
were held in violation of Sections 616 and 617 of Title 10, (USC), 
the applicant offers an undated brief in support of a class action 
complaint against the United States that was apparently filed with 
the United States Court of Federal Claims.  The applicant offers 
no explanation as to how or why this brief constitutes evidence of 
any  error  or  injustice  in  his  promotion  selection  boards.    In 
addition,  had  the  applicant  searched  a  little  harder,  he  would 
have  discovered  that  the  provided  lawsuit  was  dismissed  by  the 
Court of Federal Claims, which held the Air Force promotion system 
does  not  violate  governing  statutes  (to  include  Title  10,  USC, 
Sections 616 and 617) or Department of Defense regulation.  
 
It  is  JA’s  opinion  that  the  Board  should  deny  the  applicant’s 
request  as  untimely;  however,  if  the  Board  waives  the  untimely 
filing and considers the application on the merits, the applicant 
has failed to offer any evidence of a material error or injustice.   
 
The complete JA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.   
 
__________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 
 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  Evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on 27 March 2012, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit  E).    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  an  injustice.    We  took 
notice  of  the  applicant's  complete  submission  in  judging  the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and 
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility 
and  adopt  their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  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. 
 
4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not 
been shown that a personal appearance with or without counsel will 
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issues  involved.  
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered. 
 
__________________________________________________________________ 

3 

 
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-2012-00029  in  Executive  Session  on  31  July  2012,  under  the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 
 
 Panel Chair 
 Member 
 Member 

 
The  following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  connection 
with AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2012-00029: 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 22 Dec 11, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/PB, dated 7 Feb 12, w/atchs 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 29 Feb 12, w/atchs 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Mar 12. 

 
Panel Chair 

4