Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-04795
Original file (BC-2012-04795.txt) Auto-classification: Denied




She receive the following relief based on being the victim of a 
substantiated case of reprisal pursuant to DODD 7050.06, 
Military Whistleblower Protection, dated 23 Jul 07, and Title 
10 USC 1034:

1. Her record be corrected to reflect that she was selected for 
the position of Director, Reserve Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) 
Management Office (REAMO) effective Jan 09.

2. She receive a new date of separation (DOS) of 31 Jan 14, or 
one year from the date of the Board’s decision with credited 
retirement and service points.

3. She receive all active duty back pay, leave, basic allowance 
for subsistence (BAS), basic allowance for housing (BAH) for the 
Washington, DC area and a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or 
Discharge from Active Duty for having served in the Director, 
REAMO position from 1 Feb 10 to 1 Feb 14, or one year from the 
date of the Board’s decision.

4. She receive $1,000.00 for recoupment of gasoline and vehicle 
maintenance due to her geographic separation from her family.

6. She receive a direct promotion (without Special Selection 
Board (SSB) consideration) to the grade of brigadier general 
(BG) with an effective date of 1 Feb 11.

7. She be granted any and all other relief the Board and the 
Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) deem appropriate.



In a 10-page statement the applicant presents the following 
major contentions:

1. Her application is the result of substantiated findings from 
an official Secretary of the Air Force Inspector General 
(SAF/IG) complaint she filed on 2 Sep 08.  

2. In May 08, she submitted an application to be considered for 
the Director, REAMO position.  The assignment to this position 
would have incurred an additional four years of active duty.  
The announcement required an Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) of 
37F4 (Personnel) and stated that AGR applications would be the 
only ones considered.  She met every required qualification.  

3. On 10 Jul 08, she was notified that an Air Reserve Technician 
(ART) who did not meet the advertised requirements had been 
selected.  Among other things, the officer was not a 

4. She was informed the general officer charged with making the 
selection did not base his decision on the merits of the records 
but on personal prejudices against her.

5. The crux of her reprisal complaint was that she clearly 
should have been chosen as the Director, REAMO.  Had she been 
given the opportunity to serve as the Director, REAMO and 
subsequently meet the Reserve Brigadier General Qualification 
Board (RBGQB), she likely would have been placed in a BG 
position.  Furthermore, her record in the context of that period 
of time would have been very competitive for promotion to the 
grade of BG.  Her official Air Force record as well as her 
colonel (Col) Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) speaks for 
itself.  She was the youngest line of the Air Force Col at the 
age of 39, when she pinned on Col in Feb 04.  It stands to 
reason, that if her record was exceptional enough to advance her 
through the ranks that quickly, promotion to the grade of BG was 
surely a reasonable expectation.  

6. Even though the evidence of reprisal was substantiated in her 
favor, she would be at a disadvantage if allowed to meet a SSB 
today.  She would not have a PRF, an appropriate general officer 
ranking and many of the general officer board members would be 
familiar with her case and likely oppose selecting her for 
promotion.  Her record cannot be reconstructed in such a manner 
so as to permit her to compete for promotion on a fair and 
equitable basis.  

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



In 2007, the applicant met an Air Reserve Board (ARB) and 
requested a two year extension of her 31 Jan 08 DOS.  

On 13 Aug 07, the applicant sent a letter to the AFRC/CC, 
stating in part that the ARB’s decision not to extend her was 
“flawed” and that the process violated Air Force Instructions 
and Title 10 USC.  

In Apr 08, AGR Vacancy Announcement 08-598H (Director, REAMO) 
was announced with a closing date of 28 May 08.  On 23 May 08, 
the applicant submitted an application.

In July 08, the Deputy AF/RE selected a logistics officer for 
the position.

On 2 Sep 08, the applicant filed an IG complaint with the SAF/IG 
office IAW AFI 90-301, Inspector General Complaints Resolution.  
The applicant alleged that the Deputy AF/RE reprised against her 
by not selecting her for the position in violation of Title 10 
USC 1034.

On 1 Feb 10, the applicant retired in the grade of Col (0-6). 

On 13 Jul 10, the applicant was notified that the SAF/IG had 
substantiated her allegation of reprisal against the Deputy 
AF/RE, under the provision of Title 10, USC 1034.  SAF/IG 
reviewed the ROI and approved its findings.  In addition, the 
Department of Defense (DoD)/IG conducted a thorough review of 
the report and concurred with its findings that the Deputy AF/RE 
had reprised against her by not selecting her for the position 
of Director, REAMO in violation of Title 10 USC 1034.

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained 
in the evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air 
Force, which are contained at Exhibits B, C and F.



AFRC/JA recommends denial. JA states that according to the ROI 
there were two AGRs that applied for the Director, REAMO 
position and that both were tied as the top candidates.  The 
cover sheet that accompanied the AGR announcement provided that 
“if two or more AGRs apply, their applications are the only ones 
forwarded on the initial nomination package, regardless of the 
number of applicants that applied.  Ten eligible candidates 
applied for the position.  

However, instead of sending only the AGR applicants, to the 
Deputy AF/RE for consideration, all 10 candidates were 
forwarded.  The applicant met all the mandatory qualifications 
of the vacancy announcement and only lacked squadron command 
experience which the vacancy announcement listed as “highly 
desirable,” but not mandatory.  The other AGR colonel met all 
the mandatory requirements, but he too, lacked the highly 
desirable command experience.  Both applicants were tied as the 
#1 candidate.  

According to the ROI, the Deputy AF/RE engaged in numerous frank 
discussions about the candidates with members of his staff, and 
after these discussions he selected a non-AGR candidate.  His 
rationale for not selecting the applicant was that he was 
“looking for someone with extensive AFR experience, staff 
experience at the headquarters and most importantly squadron 
commander experience.”  According to the Deputy AF/RE the 
candidate selected was the most qualified for the position.  

Title 10 USC 1034b provides that “no person may take (or 
threaten to take) an unfavorable personnel action, or withhold 
(or threaten to withhold) a favorable personnel action, as a 
reprisal against a member of the armed forces for making or 
preparing” to make a protected communication.

AGR members are not by law or policy guaranteed a right to serve 
beyond 20 years in the AFR.  The AFR manages its AGRs through an 
ARB to review AGRs with an upcoming DOS biannually for 
continuation in the AGR program for career status beyond their 
20 year active duty retirement date.  The applicant’s records 
met an ARB in Mar 07. The results of that ARB were that her DOS 
remained at 31 Jan 08.  The applicant appealed the denial of her 
AGR tour extension which the AFRC/CC denied.  She asked for 
reconsideration and AFRC/CC subsequently granted her request 
thereby extending her AGR tour to 31 Jan 10.  Before she retired 
on 1 Feb 10, she could have applied for another AGR position and 
if selected would have been eligible to serve on duty longer.  

In May 08, the applicant applied for the Director, REAMO, for 
which position she was not selected.  She applied for no other 
AGR positions before she retired.

The applicant argues that she was the most qualified despite the 
SAF/IGS ROI that states that she tied with another colonel as 
the #1 candidate.  As for justification for her promotion to the 
grade of BG, the applicant cites that “each Director, REAMO has 
been screened by the Reserve Brigadier General Qualification 
Board (RBGQB) and found to be qualified to be placed in a Brig 
Gen position.”  However, selection as qualified for the RBGQB is 
by no means a guarantee for promotion to BG.  The facts reveal 
that while these officers may have been selected as qualified 
for RBGQB, only one has been promoted to BG.    

Facts are that twice a year the AFR convenes an ARB with the 
purpose of reviewing AGRs with an upcoming DOS for continuation 
in the AGR program for career status or beyond their 20 year 
active duty retirement date.  The applicant’s records went 
before an ARB that resulted in her DOS remaining at 31 Jan 08, 
until AFRC/CC granted her reconsideration and extended her AGR 
tour to 31 Jan 10.  There is no authority that provides an AGR 
will receive, is promised, or is guaranteed an extended tour. 
The standard for an ARB is the “needs of the AFR.”  SAF/IGS ROI 
also conducted an inquiry into the ARB process concerns raised 
by the applicant and concluded that the “Reserve ARB is an 
authorized method to force manage the AGR program.  The inquiry 
determined the ARB met the intent of DoDI 1205.18, Full-Time 
Support (FTS) to Reserve Components and AFI 36-2132 by managing 
her career to active duty retirement eligibility.  There is 
nothing to indicate that she was singled out for denial of her 
extension request.” 

The applicant’s view is that she was involuntarily separated 
from the Air Force, and that this involuntary separation 
violated the law.  Contrary to her belief, the applicant was not 
involuntary separated from the Air Force, nor was she forced 
into retirement.  The ARB merely denied extending her AGR tour 
DOS beyond 31 Jan 10; she was allowed to finish her AGR tour and 
retired 1 Feb 10.  She could have applied for AGR tours other 
than the Director, REAMO; however, she did not.

As to a violation of Title 10 USC 1034b, the applicant appears 
to have the opinion that she was the only qualified applicant 
and would have been selected but for reprisal by the Deputy 
AF/RE substantiated in the SAF/IGS ROI.  Contrary to her views, 
the evidence found by the SAF/IGS ROI depicted another colonel 
tied with the applicant as equally qualified for the Director, 
REAMO position. Had the Deputy AF/RE not reprised against her, 
there is no evidence that she would have been selected over the 
other colonel, who tied as the #1 candidate.  

With regard to her belief that but for the reprisal she would 
have been selected as the Director, REAMO and but for this non-
selection she would have been promoted BG, the evidence again is 
to the contrary.  Selection as qualified to meet the RBGQB does 
not result in an automatic promotion.  Air Force policy is: 
promotion is not a reward for past service.  The applicant’s 
belief is that it is the position held that gives rights to 
promotion, yet despite evidence to the contrary not all that 
served as Director, REAMO have been promoted to the grade of BG.

The complete JA evaluation is at Exhibit B.

AFRC/A1K recommends denial.  A1K states that their position 
supports that of AFRC/JA.

The complete A1K evaluation is at Exhibit C.



The author of the AFRC/JA opinion has largely mischaracterized 
the facts of her case, while minimizing some of the issues 
substantiated by the findings of the SAF/IG and addressing other 
issues not even requested in her BCMR submission.

The SAF/IG ROI substantiated her allegation of reprisal, that 
the Deputy AF/RE did not select her for the Director, REAMO 
position in Jul 08.  

The SAF/IG substantiated reprisal against her is the foundation 
of her BCMR submission and the causal effects of the subsequent 
delays in addressing her case are the basis for the additional 
requests therein to provide compensation. 

Paragraph 1 of the AFRC/JA memorandum is of significant concern 
due to its initial mischaracterization of the facts contained in 
her BCMR submission and that it sets the baseline for the 
remainder of her letter.  The paragraph states the following:

She is not “alleging” that she was wrongfully denied the 
position of Director, REAMO.  That is a substantiated fact as 
stated in the SAF/IG ROI.  Therefore, her AGR orders should be 
corrected to show that she was selected for the Director, REAMO 
with four years added to her last orders, and she should have 
continuing active duty orders with a new DOS of 31 Jan 14 (or 
one year from date of the Board’s decision IAW Title 10 USC 
1552d, whichever is sooner.  Additionally, her retirement date 
should be amended to at least that point and all pay and 
entitlements which should have been earned, be awarded to her as 

Secondly, she did not allege she was wrongfully denied promotion 
to the grade of BG.  The fact is that due to the substantiated 
reprisal by the Deputy AF/RE, she was denied the position as 
Director, REAMO and subsequently the opportunity to 
competitively screen for the RBGQB.  While she fully understands 
that selection for promotion to BG is highly competitive and by 
no means an assurance solely based upon attaining specific 
positions during a career, the fact of the matter is that the 
opportunity to compete was wrongly denied to her by the 
substantiated reprisal actions of the Deputy AF/RE.  A promotion 
board should only be usurped when there are: 1) extraordinary 
circumstances (i.e. a showing that the officer’s record cannot 
be reconstructed in such a manner so as to permit fair and 
equitable consideration) and 2) when the probability of 
selection for promotion would have been extremely high were it 
not for the original errors.  Her record in this case cannot be 
reconstructed to show OPRs pertaining to her tenure as Director, 
REAMO or any other positive effect of her selection to that 
position.  Moreover, based on her previous record and rate of 
selection of the previous Directors, REAMO, there is a high 
probability that she would have been highly competitive and 
selected for promotion to the grade of BG.

Third, the AFRC/JA opinion repeatedly mentions that she alleges 
she was wrongfully denied extension of her AGR tour and was 
involuntarily separated.  The fact of the matter is that she is 
not addressing the issue of the ARB or her separation, or any 
extension issues in this BCMR request at this point due to the 
fact that she still has not received any of the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) information she requested.  As previously 
stated she would separate her BMCR into two separate cases:  

one for her reprisal case and a second BCMR at a future date on 
all the other wrong doings (i.e. AGR mismanagement, violations 
of law and her involuntary separation from the Air Force) once 
she receives the appropriate information.

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



AF/JAA recommends denial.  AF/JAA states that the applicant was 
not the only AGR who was the top candidate for the Director, 
REAMO position and when faced with her AGR tour extension denial 
in 2010, she elected not to apply for other AGR positions or 
another Reserve position.  It was within her control to apply 
for other AGR positions or pursue other opportunities that could 
have continued her in the Reserves until potentially other AGR 
positions came open.  In short, the applicant chose to retire.  

AF/JAA states that one may consider that a denied tour extension 
in the current AGR position does not force the member to retire.  
However, it was a decision based on the best interest of the Air 
Force that the applicant should not be extended in her current 
position.  In fact, from her application, the applicant’s 
supervisor stated that she had a successful path ahead of her in 
the AGR program for many years to come.  The fact was she had 
been serving in that position for approximately six years.  The 
applicant comments that each Director, REAMO had been screened 
and found qualified to be placed in a BG position.  As pointed 
out by AFRC/JA, being found qualified to be in such a position 
does not mean the individual would be guaranteed promotion.  In 
fact, only one of the named prior Directors, REAMO had been 
actually promoted to the higher grade.  In addition, there was 
no guarantee that even if the applicant had been selected for 
Director, REAMO she would have been successfully found qualified 
to be placed in a BG position.  

AF/JAA states that they do not slight the applicant’s record, 
but note that she was not the top candidate for the Director, 
REAMO position.  There was another qualified individual, and 
they do not see any evidence that person was reprised against by 
not being selected.  In fact, there was no guarantee that had 
the other candidate been selected, he or she would have been 
found qualified to be placed in a BG position.  Finally, the 
applicant does not present other AGR or Reserve positions that 
she applied for and was denied, and she does not identify other 
positions that would guarantee her being found qualified for the 
higher grade.

AF/JAA states that they cannot and do not ignore the fact that 
she was the victim of reprisal; however, they do not believe she 
has articulated a justified claim for relief.  While a second 
ARB decided not to extend her AGR tour, it was within the 
applicant’s control to apply for other positions rather than 

The complete AF/JAA evaluation is at Exhibit F.



Every time she receives a legal opinion either from AFRC or 
Headquarters Air Force (HAF), she is regrettably presented with 
either a gross mischaracterization of the facts or the 
minimization of the circumstances surrounding her case.  The 
applicant states that she is entitled to correction of her 
military records for the reprisal against her as stipulated in 
Title 10 USC 1034, as substantiated by the ROI provided by the 

The first two pages of the AF/JAA opinion attempt to restate the 
background of her complaint and emphasize that she did not have 
the highly desirable command experience.  However, as noted in 
her 17 Jan 13 reply to the AFRC/JA advisory opinion, it is 
undisputed the advertised position requirement for Director, 
REAMO stated, “previous squadron, flight or section command is 
highly desirable.”  She was a squadron section commander at 
Soesterberg Air Base, The Netherlands.  This is evidenced in her 
records and duty title summary previously provided in her 
Jan 13 rebuttal. There appears to have been a gross 
administrative error on the part of the REAMO office when they 
did their initial screening.

The reviewers continue to either misunderstand or 
mischaracterize the issue and the fact that it was during the IG 
interview that the Deputy AF/RE stated that he only wanted 
someone with “squadron command” (and not section or flight 
command) experience as his reason for not selecting her when he 
was questioned during the investigation.  Furthermore, she has 
been informed that she should have been “color-coded” as the 
undisputed #1 candidate for the position from the very 
beginning.  Although she has requested this information under 
the FOIA, she has yet to be provided this “color-coded” 
rack/stack list.  

The AF/JAA author attempts to shift focus to two points.  First, 
that she was not the only AGR who was a top candidate for the 
position.  However, the SAF/IG report identified her as the top 
candidate based on interviews conducted and insights provided 
under oath.  Even if there was another strong candidate, the 
Deputy AF/RE reprisal actions against her ensured she was denied 
the position.  Her concern is the compensation she should be 
afforded based on the substantiated reprisal actions of the 
Deputy AF/RE. 

Regarding her second point, it seems convenient that three or so 
years after the fact, the case reviewers simply state that she 
chose to retire and could have applied for other jobs.  This is 
absurd when considering the facts.  During that time, she was 
waiting on the results of an official IG complaint which by law, 
is supposed to be finalized within six months (it actually took 
22 months to conclude and she was not provided the results until 
the last day of Jul 10, an admitted oversight by the (SAF/IG).  
It does not make sense that she would apply for other positions 
when she was waiting for the results.  At a minimum, the Air 
Force should have retained her at her current duty location or 
one close by until the results were provided.  Also, as verified 
in the IG report, she was informed that she was not going to get 
another job.  Furthermore, she did not request to leave the AGR 
career program; she requested to stay in the program but was 
told to either retire or she would be placed in the Individual 
Ready Reserve (IRR). 

She cannot communicate how competitive her promotion potential 
was prior to the reprisal actions of the Deputy AF/RE.  Even the 
AF/JAA advisory opinion states they do not slight her record at 
all.  She acknowledges that she would be at a disadvantage if 
her case were presented to a SSB.  However, at this point she 
offers her records as evidence that she achieved every whole-
person milestone, served at all levels (squadron, wing, MAJCOM, 
HAF and Joint Command), has always been ranked as #1 or #2 or 
top 1%, completed her Master’s Degree, awarded the Legion of 
Merit (LOM) and completed all professional military education 
(PME).  The probability of her being selected for promotion 
would have been extremely high.  However, her case is one of 
such an egregious injustice and blatant abuse of power that 
unprecedented action should be warranted.   

Lastly, regarding AF/JAA’s advisory opinion that they 
acknowledge and do not ignore the fact that she was the victim 
of reprisal based on the substantiated findings of the official 
IG complaint, her professional response to that is this: the law 
orders military department BCMRs to correct the record of a 
victim of reprisal pursuant to Title 10 USC 1034 and to provide 
appropriate compensation.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit H.



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 concerning 
the applicant’s requests for a direct promotion to the grade of 
BG and that her record be corrected to reflect that she was 
selected for the Director, REAMO position with a new DOS of Jan 
2014.  Although the applicant has been the victim of 
substantiated reprisal in violation of 10 USC 1034 by the Deputy 
AF/RE, which was wrong and unacceptable, we cannot conclude that 
a direct promotion to the grade of BG is an appropriate remedy.  
In this respect, we note that this Board has long taken the 
position that issues of promotion are best determined by a duly 
constituted promotion board empowered with the authority to 
determine those best qualified for the limited number of 
promotions available.  In addition, our effort to try and 
determine the appropriate relief in light of the act of reprisal 
has been complicated by the applicant’s decision to retire from 
the Air Force.  Moreover, the applicant has specifically 
requested that she not meet a SSB so SSB consideration is moot.  
While this Board has on occasion found it to be in the interest 
of justice to directly promote an applicant, it has only been 
under the most extraordinary of circumstances when the Board is 
convinced the applicant has been unfairly deprived of promotion 
and likely cannot receive fair and equitable consideration.  
Although the list of accomplishments the applicant has presented 
appears impressive, we cannot validate they establish her 
qualifications for promotion or know how they would be viewed 
when stacked against her contemporaries in a competitive 
promotion process.  Essentially, we can only speculate as to 
whether or not she would have ultimately been promoted to the 
grade of BG. Moreover, as pointed out by AFRC/JA, being found 
qualified to be in such a position does not mean an individual 
would be guaranteed promotion.  In fact, AF/JAA states that only 
one of the named prior Directors, REAMO had been actually 
promoted to the higher grade.  Additionally, there is no 
guarantee that even if the applicant had been selected for 
Director, REAMO she would have been successfully found qualified 
to be placed in a BG position.  In view of this, coupled with 
the fact that the ROI reflects that she was not the definitive 
number one candidate for the position, we are not persuaded that 
she more likely than not would have been promoted to the grade 
of BG were it not for the reprisal.  Unfortunately, there are 
situations wherein the ability of the Board to craft relief that 
will make an applicant completely whole is often times limited 
by the very circumstances of the case.  In this instance, there 
is no way to completely restore the career opportunities the 
applicant may have lost. Therefore, we do not find extraordinary 
circumstances in her case that rise to a level to warrant a 
direct promotion to the prestigous grade of BG.   With regards 
to her requests that her records be corrected to show that she 
was selected for the Director, REAMO position with a DOS of Jan 
2014, we believe the relief recommended that includes 
constructive credit through January 2013, is the more 
appropriate remedy.  Accordingly, we find no basis to grant this 
portion of the applicant’s request.

4.  Notwithstanding the above, sufficient relevant evidence has 
been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or 
injustice to warrant changing her records to reflect a new DOS of 
1 Feb 2013, with back pay, issuing a new DD Form 214 and 
reimbursement for vehicle fuel/maintenance expenses.  While the 
Board cannot definitively conclude that the applicant would have 
been selected for the position but for the reprisal; we believe 
that some measure of relief is warranted.  In this respect, we 
note that the applicant tied with another colonel as the “#1” 
candidate for the Director, REAMO position.  However, because of 
the personal prejudices of the responsible management official 
against the applicant, she was not fairly considered for the 
position.  As such, we have determined what we believe is the 
appropriate relief based on the evidence before us.  Although the 
applicant contends that she should be given service credit from 
1 Feb 10 to 1 Feb 14, we find it more equitable to award the 
applicant with three years of active service credit beginning 
1 Feb 10, resulting in a new retirement date of 1 Feb 13, which 
is consistent with the date she alleges she would have actually 
reported to the Director, REAMO position (Jan 09).  Additionally, 
we believe reimbursement for her out-of-pocket vehicle 
maintenance expenses incurred as a result of having to be 
geographically separated from her family due to the reprisal is 
warranted.  Therefore, we believe correcting the applicant’s 
record to reflect that she was awarded three years’ service 
credit with associated back pay and allowances along with 
reimbursement of vehicle expense is appropriate to the 
circumstances of the case and constitutes full and fitting 
relief.  Therefore, we recommend the applicant’s records be 
corrected to the extent indicated below.  

5.  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 issue(s) 
involved.  Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 



The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air 
Force relating to APPLICANT be corrected to show that:

	a.  She was not released from active duty on 31 January 
2010, but on that date, she was continued on active duty until 
31 January 2013, at which time she was released from active duty 
and retired under the provisions of Title 10, United States 
Code, Section 8911, effective 1 February 2013.

		 b. She was in a temporary duty status for a sufficient 
number of days to accumulate an entitlement of $1,000.00. 


The following members of the Board considered Docket Number    
BC-2012-04795 in Executive Session on 18 Apr 13, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603:

				Panel Chair

All members voted to correct the records as recommended.  The 
following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Oct 12, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Letter, AFRC/JA, dated 4 Dec 12.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFRC/A1K, dated 17 Dec 12.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 21 Dec 12.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Jan 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit F.  Letter, AF/JAA, dated 31 Jan 13.
	Exhibit G.  Email, SAF/MRBC, dated 22 Mar 13, w/atch.
	Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 17 Apr 13.

								Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2008 | BC-2007-02023

    Original file (BC-2007-02023.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFRC asserts that “he had to request voluntary AGR curtailment which would release him from his contract of current active duty service (AGR Tour) with the Air Force Reserve, and he had to be conditionally released from the AFR for each of the acronyms stated there. Of significance to the Board is the fact that although he claims his AGR Tour was wrongfully terminated, he completed and submitted the AGR Tour Curtailment Worksheet on 26 August 2006, with a stated reason for his request being...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-2005-03739

    Original file (BC-2005-03739.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    After notification of his selection for promotion, he was told he would have to find a MSC position and would not be able to fill a line position. In his case as an AGR, by applying the same instruction, it allows the Air Force Reserve Commander to usurp the promotion board's authority and keep people from wearing the promotion they have earned. The REAMO evaluation is at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01073

    Original file (BC-2003-01073.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant states, in part, that he advised the South Carolina Adjutant General (SC AG) of an attempt by another officer in the SC ANG to subvert the AG’s express wishes by having himself (the other officer) assigned to the COS position in the SC ANG; he was asked by the AG to document, by memorandum, the conversation between the two, which he did; the memorandum “found its way to others” and he subsequently became the focus of an AF/IG investigation that eventually found that he had...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2012 | BC-2012-03031

    Original file (BC-2012-03031.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    JA states that based on the facts presented in the NGB opinions, JA finds their responses to be legally sufficient and concurs with the recommendations to deny the applicant's requests for corrective action related to ACP payments, Board# V0611A, AGR separation from ANG Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB) consideration, and TERA. Counsel’s complete response is at Exhibit N. _______________________________________________________________ ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: NGB/A1PF...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2009 | BC-2007-02503

    Original file (BC-2007-02503.DOC) Auto-classification: Approved

    ________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: ARPC/JA recommends relief, and states, in part; the applicant suffered a downgraded EPR due to lack of training and lack of response from her supervisors or chain of command. The evidence of record clearly establishes that she was not being properly trained and that her chain-of-command was derelict in training her. At the request of the applicant’s counsel, the DoD/IG reexamined the documentation...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9800457

    Original file (9800457.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit K. The Chief, Evaluation Programs Branch, AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and states that although the applicant has provided support from the senior rater, she provide no support from the MLR president to warrant upgrading the PRF. After reviewing the evidence of record and noting the applicant’s contentions, the majority of the Board is not persuaded that the applicant’s records are either in error or unjust. The...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2011 | BC-2010-02704

    Original file (BC-2010-02704.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    AFRC/A1A recommends denial, indicating there is no basis to assume the applicant would have been selected for position vacancy promotion by the lieutenant colonel promotion board, or hired as an AGR. We note the applicant filed an IG complaint alleging, among other things, that members of his chain of command unfairly denied him the opportunity to apply for multiple AGR positions and damaged his reputation by providing negative references to potential employers in retaliation for his...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-01871

    Original file (BC-2003-01871.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Two of the members of a three-person ethics panel appointed to conduct an ethics review on him had already prejudged the case and/or had an obvious interest in supporting the IG’s conclusions. They also provide responses to each of the allegations made by the applicant. Again, other than his assertion, the applicant has not provided evidence to support this allegation.

  • AF | BCMR | CY2013 | BC-2012-03153

    Original file (BC-2012-03153.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    He be reinstated as an active member of the Air Force Reserve, effective 15 October 2010, with award of IDT points consistent with the average IDT points he earned between 1 March 2008 and 31 March 2010. In this respect, we believe the evidence provided makes it clear that a serious personality conflict existed between the applicant and certain members of his chain of command as validated by Inspector General (IG) complaints filed by his supervisory chain and the applicant himself, as well...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802041

    Original file (9802041.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Her request for senior rater endorsement on the EPR should not be granted at this time. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provides the wing commander’s concurrence of her request for senior rater indorsement. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice to warrant amending the MSM citation to include...