RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02895
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. His duty title be changed from Commander to Detachment
Commander.
2. By way of amendment, the applicant requests he be considered
for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board
(SSB) for the Calendar Year 2012A (CY12A) Lieutenant Colonel
Central Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His duty title history reflects that during the period of 2007-
2010 he was the squadron commander; however, during this period,
he was recommended for Operations Officer, which had a negative
progression from a commander position. He believes that his
record should accurately reflect that he was a detachment
commander because it will show an upward progression. His AF IMT
35, Request and Authorization for Assumption of/Appoint to
Command, dated 28 Sep 07, reflects that he was appointed
Commander of the Detachment 1, 345th Training Squadron.
His complete submission, with attachment, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major (0-4).
The remaining 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:
AFPC/DPSOS recommends denial. The applicants duty title that is
reflected as Commander on his Officer Performance Report (OPR)
is correct as he was a detachment commander. Changing the duty
title would cause redundancy. Additionally, he has not provided
any supporting evidence that his records indicate he was a
sitting squadron commander during this same time period.
The complete DPSOS evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
In response to the advisory opinion, the applicant provided a
proposed letter to the CY12A Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection
Board, in which he stated, in part, the following:
1. He was non-selected by the CY12A lieutenant colonel promotion
board and would like to be reconsidered for promotion. It will
be noticed that he did not receive a medal from his assignment at
Whiteman AFB from 2001-2004. His commander failed to submit many
personnel for a medal upon their departure. He is not sure why
he did not receive a medal because he did not receive any
negative feedback. In fact, it was just the opposite; he was
selected as the Company Grade Officer (CGO) of the Quarter and
2003 or Squadron CGO of the Year, which was never documented in
his 2003 or 2004 evaluations.
2. He failed to ask why he did not receive a medal after
realizing he should have, but it was too late (over 2 years had
passed). He provides information from his evaluation to be
included in his consideration for promotion to lieutenant
colonel.
The applicants 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 timely filed.
3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. After a
thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's
submission, we are not persuaded that his uncorroborated
assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the rationale provided by the Air Force. Therefore, we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office
of primary responsibility and adopt the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has not suffered
either an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
persuasive 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-2012-02895 in Executive Session on 15 Feb 13, under the
provisions of AFI 36-2603:
, Panel Chair
, Member
, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 21 Jun 12, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPALL, dated 30 Jul 12.
Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Aug 12.
Exhibit D. Letter, Applicant, undated.
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02895
DPAMF2 states it might have been understandable if the applicant was entering AD service for the first time, but notes she served on active duty in the Air Force from 1999-2005 and met the major's promotion board. The applicant has a complete record of performance that will be reviewed by central board members. THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ Chair DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC [pic] Office of the Assistant Secretary AFBCMR BC-2007-02895 MEMORANDUM FOR CHIEF OF STAFF Having received and...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01500
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01500 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), fourth oak leaf cluster (4OLC), awarded for the period 16 November 98 through 23 July 2001, be upgraded to a Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) and he be considered for promotion by a Special Selection Board for...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-03376
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: Disagreement between the USAF and the US Navy (USN) on determining awarding authority of the AM prevented its inclusion in his officer selection records (OSR) and its consideration by the promotion board. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: HQ AFPC/DPPPO does not support the applicant’s contention that disagreements between the USAF and USN on...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-00890
His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1999B Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO evaluation is at Exhibit F. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a detailed response and additional documentary evidence which are attached...
AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC 2013 05324
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2013-05324 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Air Medal (AM), dated 30 October 2012 be changed to reflect a date prior to 8 June 2009. While it is noted there were significant delays in between when the act occurred and when the applicant received award of the AM, no documentation has been presented demonstrating a recommendation package for the AM was...
AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-05077
Based upon the presumed sufficiency of the referral OPR as served, and insufficient evidence to support the allegations made by the applicant, they find that the referral comment mentioned in the applicant's contested report was appropriate, and as such there is no basis in which to support removal of the contested evaluation. After reviewing all of the evidence provided, we are not persuaded the applicants referral OPR should be expunged and her record be given Special Selection Board...
The first to request promotion consideration to the grade of major, by SSB, because of the DAFSC correction on the two OPRs and, the second to request promotion consideration because of the correction in Section VII of the 15 June 1997 OPR. The Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) was correct on both the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) and Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the CY98B board. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02775
He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by special selection board (SSB) for the CY01B Central Colonel Selection Board with the corrected OSB. The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 20 Dec 02 for review and comment within 30 days. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging...
The following are documented omissions from his personnel records and Officer Selection Brief (OSB) at the time of the CY98B lieutenant colonel board: 1) Overseas Long Tour at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany: Jan 84- Jan 87. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Reports & Queries Section, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, states, with respect to the applicant’s duty history, that they have reviewed the applicant’s source document Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and AF Forms...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-02171
The complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his response to the Air Force advisory, applicant notes that although his decoration was processed within the timelines indicated in AFI 36-2803, his decoration was processed well after 20 plus other awards had been approved for members of his crew. In further support of his appeal, applicant attaches a copy of a special...