RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02295 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

Correct his retirement rank to reflect Lieutenant Colonel (Lt 
Col), O-5. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Air Force Personnel Center erroneously identified him as 
having been twice passed over for promotion to Lt Col on his 
“two below the zone” promotion board in 2008. This error 
consequently identified him as a three-time passed over Major on 
his first “in or above the zone promotion board.” The timeline 
is as follows: 

 

 a. He returned from a tour of duty in Iraq on 14 May 2010. 
Within two weeks, he received an email from AFPC stating that he 
was scheduled for mandatory retirement. At that time he had no 
reason to question this. He had just hit 19 years of active 
duty service in April 2010 and this sounded plausible. He 
figured he would wait until the results from his first in the 
zone promotion board to Lt Col (7 Mar–25 Mar P0510A 2010) was 
released. If he was promoted, the mandatory retirement 
requirement would go away, if not promoted, he would retire. In 
August 2010 the results of the promotion board was announced and 
he was passed over. With this knowledge and the fact that he 
had a mandatory retirement date already set by AFPC, he would 
not be eligible for any more promotion boards. He followed the 
direction of the AFPC email and began the process of applying 
for retirement. 

 

 b. On 15 March 2011, he attended the local base finance 
retirement briefing. He was briefed about possible AF 
recoupment of any owed debt. They checked his official finance 
records at that time; no debt was listed for him. On 
14 April 2011, $232.09 was deposited from DFAS into his account 
for his April mid-month pay. He called the finance office and 
was told he had been identified as owing a debt for incomplete 
active duty service commitment (ADSC) for aviation continuation 
pay (ACP) in the amount of $10, 138.89. Research revealed the 
separation program designator (SPD) in his personnel record was 
incorrect. It showed his retirement as voluntary not mandatory; 


therefore, a debt was created. Further research revealed an 
incorrect code “67” indicated he was a multiple time passed over 
Major to Lt Col which incorrectly put him in a mandatory 
retirement classification and generated the 26 May 2010 email 
from AFPC stating that he was scheduled for a mandatory 
retirement. Eventually, deductions for the debt recoupment were 
stopped and his official retirement date was changed to 
1 October 2011 which ensured his ADSCs would be fulfilled and 
ACP would not require any debt recoupment. 

 

 c. The largest issue from these events was that the board 
members of P0510A, his first in the zone board, looked at his 
record as one that had already been passed over three times for 
promotion. As past promotion statistics clearly show, it is 
next to impossible for passed over officers to get promoted. 
The only time this occurs is when the passed over officer has a 
Definitely Promote (DP) on their promotion recommendation Form 
(PRF). The chance is even less for promotion to Lt Col if 
passed over. At the time, his records incorrectly showed that 
he had been passed over not just once, but three times and he 
did not have a DP or Super P on his PRF. This put his record in 
the “do not promote” pile from the beginning and for all intents 
and purposes left him basically no chance for promotion on his 
first board. With mandatory retirement set by AFPC his 
opportunity for promotion on his second or above the zone board 
was reduced to zero because he was not eligible. 

 

 d. Even with the undeniable proof that the Air Force made a 
very large mistake on his behalf concerning his personnel record 
and his chance for promotion, there is no way that he could say 
for sure that he would have been promoted to Lt Col on his first 
in the zone board had no mistake been made. But neither can it 
be said that he would have still been passed over if his record 
was correct. They cannot go back and recreate the board with 
all its original members or go through the over 2000 records 
that were looked at on that board. His opportunity to be 
promoted by that board was unjustly taken away from him when the 
erroneous code was put in his record in 2008. 

 

 e. AFPC offered him the chance to go before a special 
selection promotion board after the mistake was discovered. His 
record at that special selection promotion board would have been 
exactly as it would have been at his second in or above the zone 
board that he missed. He had no new officer performance report 
(OPR) or PRF accomplished at that time. There was no need since 
he was not eligible for the board and was being forced to 
retire. Nor had he had a chance over the previous year to 
accomplish the necessary high profile jobs and additional duties 
needed in order to get the “DP” or “Super P,” from the Wing/CC, 
on his PRF. Without these very important items there was no 
reason to meet the special selection promotion board. Weighing 
all that had happened over the previous year, he decided it was 
best for him and his family that he retired on 1 October 2011. 

 


 f. Although it may seem at this point that any ruling in his 
favor would be academic since he is no longer on active duty, he 
still serves and wears the uniform every day as an AFJROTC 
Senior Aerospace Science Instructor at a high school in Georgia. 
The Air Force made a huge error on his part which played a very 
large role, either directly or indirectly, in his being passed 
over for promotion which then caused him to miss his second in 
the zone board which strongly influenced his decision to retire. 
It would be an incredible teaching opportunity and life lesson 
to show his students that even the U.S. Air Force can make a 
mistake. But when it does it will respond and act in accordance 
with its very first and most important core value of “integrity 
first.” He humbly places this most important matter in the 
hands of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records 
(AFBCMR) and will honor the decision the Board makes. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant submits a six page 
personal statement and emails and documents pertaining to his 
retirement processing actions. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

According to documents extracted from the Automated Records 
Management System, the applicant is a former commissioned 
officer of the Regular Air Force who served from 15 April 1991 
through 30 September 2011. He was progressively promoted to the 
grade of Major, (O-4), with an Effective Date of Pay Grade of 
1 March 2006. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. DPSOO states that when the CY10A 
Lieutenant Colonel board was built, the applicant was built as 
an in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) eligible. Zone eligibility is 
based on date of rank only. The master eligibility listing 
(MEL) provided to senior raters reflected his zone as IPZ and 
therefore, he counted in the number of DPs the senior rater 
earned. At no time, was there any documentation to reflect that 
the applicant was above-the-promotion zone. The officer 
selection brief (OSB) did reflect the erroneous date of 
separation (DOS) but did not reflect a DOS reason. Therefore, 
board members did not score his records as being a deferred 
officer but as an IPZ officer. 

 

The applicant should have met the CY11A Lt Colonel board as an 
above the promotion zone (APZ) eligible. Based on the erroneous 
DOS, he was ineligible to do so. The applicant was given the 


opportunity to meet a supplemental board for the CY11A Lt 
Colonel board. Had the applicant chosen to meet an SSB, a PRF 
would have been requested through his command channels and an 
OPR would have been directed. 

 

Insufficient evidence has been presented to demonstrate the 
existence of an injustice regarding the applicant’s request for 
direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel. An officer 
may be qualified for promotion, but, in the judgment of a 
selection board vested with discretionary authority to make the 
selections, he may not be the best qualified of those available 
for the limited number of promotion vacancies. Further, to 
grant a direct promotion would be unfair to all other officers 
who have extremely competitive records and also did not get 
promoted. 

 

They disapprove the request for direct promotion to Lt Colonel, 
however, they do recommend that the applicant’s record meet an 
SSB for the CY10A Lt Colonel Central Selection Board with a 
corrected Officer Selection Brief. Had the error not occurred, 
the applicant’s DOS would have been reflected as indefinite. 
Since there was nothing in his records that could be viewed by 
the board to reflect that he was above the promotion zone, they 
believe he received a fair look despite the invalid DOS. In 
addition, if the applicant desires, they can direct the 
accomplishment of a PRF and OPR. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSOO evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

In his response, the applicant expands on his explanation of the 
erroneous code “67” in his personnel record. He indicates the 
reason the AFPC reviewer could not find the code or any 
documentation in his record at the time of their review is 
because the code “67” was removed in April 2011 when it was 
discovered to be incorrect. When this code was removed his DOS 
automatically updated to indefinite. The mandatory DOS and code 
“67” was in fact in his record at the time of his promotion 
boards beginning with the CY09B board. Senior raters and all 
promotion board members are well aware that on a Lt Col 
promotion board, any officer with a specified DOS has in fact 
been passed over 2 times or more. And if the DOS was not enough 
evidence that he had supposedly been passed over at least twice 
already, the code “67” would have been absolute proof for the 
reason of the 30 April 2011 DOS. He had no idea at that time 
that specified DOS during his Lt Col boards would be a direct 
indicator to the promotion board members that he was already a 2 
or more times deferred Major to Lt Col. That information was 
never brought to his attention during any promotion board 
training he received from his senior leadership during his 20-


year Air Force career. He became aware of the importance of a 
correct DOS for promotions during his research for this case. 
He strongly believes a decision by the AFBCMR members in his 
favor is the only way to truly right the wrong caused by the Air 
Force. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit E. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 error or injustice. After 
reviewing the evidence of record, we are not persuaded the 
applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice. We note 
the applicant was given the opportunity to meet a supplemental 
board for the CY11A Lt Colonel board but decided it was best for 
him and his family that he retire on 1 October 2011 instead, 
since, he contended, he had no new officer performance report 
(OPR) or promotion recommendation form (PRF) accomplished at 
that time. While we can appreciate the applicant's feelings 
with respect to the perception he describes, we are not 
convinced this argument warrants correction of his retirement 
rank to lieutenant colonel. Therefore, 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. In view of the above and in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling 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 this application 
in Executive Session on 15 February 2013, under the provisions 
of AFI 36-2603: 


 

 , Panel Chair 

, Member 

 , Member 

 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered in AFBCMR 
Docket Number BC-2012-02295: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 May 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant’s Master Personnel Records 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 24 July 2012, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 August 2012. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, 26 August 2012, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair