THIRD ADDENDUM TO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1994-02998 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. Her records be corrected as follows in accordance with the 
previous SAF/MRB directives issued in her case: 

 

 a. Her Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) rendered for the 
periods 7 Jun 89 through 6 Jun 90 and 7 Jun 90 through 6 Jun 91 and 
all associated attachments be removed from her records as directed in 
AFBCMR 94-02998. 

 

 b. Completion of all actions associated with her transfer to 
the Air Force Reserve on 12 May 94 and subsequent promotion to the 
grade of lieutenant colonel (Lt Col/O-5) in accordance with the 17 
Jan 96 SAF/MRB directive. 

 

 c. Her records be considered by a Special Review Board (SRB) to 
the grade of Lt Col for Fiscal Year (FY) 94/95, as directed by the 17 
Jan 96 SAF/MRB directive. 

 

 d. All evidence of her being twice passed over for promotion to 
the grade of Lt Col, discharged from the Air National Guard (ANG) in 
Dec 95, and retired as a major in Jun 96 be removed from her records. 

 

2. She be provided comprehensive reconsideration of her case and 
granted the following relief: 

 

 a. Her records be corrected to reflect she was promoted to the 
grade of Lt Col, effective and with a date of rank of 8 Jan 90, in 
line with other Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) rated officers in her 
squadron. 

 

 b. Her records be corrected to reflect she was promoted to the 
grade of colonel (O-6) when she was first eligible (1994). 

 

 c. Her records be corrected to reflect she was not released 
from her AGR position on 12 May 94, but continued to serve in the Air 
Force Reserve in flying status until being retired in Apr 2004 at her 
mandatory separation date (as a colonel), with full back pay, 
allowances, flight pay, and any applicable special flight or 
retention bonuses. 


 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

1. Portions of AFBCMR Directives dated 17 Jan 96 and 1 Oct 96 were 
not accomplished: 

 

 a. Her two OPRs, rendered for the periods ending 6 Jun 90 and 6 
Jun 91 were not voided and removed from her records in accordance 
with the directives issued by the AFBCMR. Her non-selection during 
the 2009 recall of rated officers may have been due to the presence 
of these unjust documents in her record. 

 

 b. She was not transferred to the U.S. Air Force Reserve 
(USAFR) on 12 May 94 in accordance with these directives and, thus, 
was ineligible to do anything other than await separation. 

 

 c. Her corrected records were not considered by a Special 
Review Board (SRB) for the Fiscal Year (FY) 1994 Reserve of the Air 
Force Lt Col Selection Board, as recommended by the Board. Her 
records show she was a non-select to Lt Col in FY94/95. 

 

 d. AFBCMR 94-02998 was “unattainable” without further Board 
guidance, and was not properly implemented. Her records were not 
properly updated to include removal of information reflecting (1) her 
non-selection to Lt Col, (2) her MSD to major, (3) her separation 
orders, (4) and her retirement orders. 

 

2. She should be granted a comprehensive reconsideration of her 
case. While the evidence had been provided in support of her 
requests, it was probably reviewed piecemeal and in such a manner as 
to prohibit appropriate consideration and fair decisions. Board 
members must revisit the evidence submitted with her initial 
submission and follow-on addendums in total so the injustices may be 
entirely examined and her service record be corrected accordingly. 
Further, the supporting documentation provided by Air Force 
evaluators in her previous three applications to the AFBCMR, as 
described in the 17 Jan 96 record of proceedings (ROP) and the 4 Oct 
96 and 9 Feb 00 addenda, were not properly reviewed for truth and 
compliance with law before being accepted as fact. Inclusion of 
potentially incorrect information made the evidentiary record unfair. 
While these documents had been created to establish cause for her 
separation, they evidenced a discriminatory line of thinking; 
however, it appears as though these documents were accepted in the 17 
Jan 96 ROP and its addenda as true and factual without consideration 
of her additional evidence refuting their veracity. These errors in 
fact recorded in the original ROP, coupled with an unbalanced 
presentation, were used to evaluate the case and provide a false and 
erroneous foundation for addenda evaluations. 

 

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

 


________________________________________________________________ 

 

RESUME OF CASE: 

 

On 8 Aug 95 and 7 Dec 95, the Board considered the applicant’s 
requests to be reinstated into a full-time AGR position in the ANG or 
equivalent position; be reinstated into a flying position; have her 
OPRs rendered for the periods closing 6 Jun 90 and 6 Jun 91 be 
declared void and removed from her record; and, she be promoted to 
the grade of Lt Col, effective 8 Jan 90, with back pay and 
allowances. The AFBCMR issued AFBCMR Directive 94-02998 (Corrected 
Copy), dated 17 Jan 96, directing the two contested OPRs be declared 
void and removed from her records; her records be corrected to show 
she was not released from her AGR position on 12 Jul 91, but 
continued to serve until 11 May 94, at which point she would have 
attained 20 years of total active federal military service (TAFMS); 
on 12 May 94, she was released from her AGR tour and transferred to 
the Reserve; and, her corrected records be considered for promotion 
to the Reserve grade of Lt Col by SRBs for the Fiscal Years (FYs) 95 
and 96 Reserve of the Air Force Lt Col Selection Boards. For an 
accounting of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s 
original request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the 
Board, see the Record of Proceedings (ROP) at Exhibit K. 

 

By virtue of a letter, dated 20 May 96, the applicant’s counsel 
requested the applicant’s records be corrected to show she was 
promoted by unit vacancy. In addition, the SRB previously directed 
in the 17 Jan 96 AFBCMR directive had convened and determined the 
applicant should have been recommended for promotion by the FY95 
Reserve Air Force Lt Col Board. The AFBCMR issued another directive, 
dated 1 Oct 96, directing that upon Senate confirmation, the 
applicant’s records be corrected to show she was promoted to the 
Reserve grade of Lt Col, with an effective date and promotion service 
date of 16 Mar 95. For an accounting of the facts and circumstances 
surrounding the applicant’s original request and the rationale of the 
earlier decision by the Board, see the Addendum to the ROP at 
Exhibit N. 

 

By virtue of a letter, dated 14 Nov 97, the applicant noted that she 
was a Lt Col with 20 years of active service, promoted while in a 
non-recognized reserve status and retired before completing three 
years time-in-grade; and, her record still contained inaccurate and 
unjust command documents (i.e., Letters of Admonishment (LOA) and 
Counseling (LOC)) and the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) 
investigation which were used as the basis of her separation and 
termination of her AGR position. In view of this, she requested 
these documents be removed from her records and she be returned to 
active duty and transferred to Reserve status on 12 May 94. In the 
alternative, she requested she be credited with active service for 
the period 12 May 94 through 31 Dec 95 and granted a waiver to the 
time-in-grade requirement to allow retirement in the grade of Lt Col. 
The AFBMCR notified the applicant in a letter, dated 9 Feb 2000, 
there was insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant 
corrective action, and her application was denied. For an accounting 


of the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s original 
request and the rationale of the earlier decision by the Board, see 
the Second Addendum to the ROP at Exhibit Z. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

ARPC/DPTG recommends correcting the applicant’s record to reflect her 
retired grade as Lt Col and that she receive all associated 
compensation and entitlements retroactive to her effective retirement 
date of 1 Jun 96. With regard to the 17 Jan 96 AFBCMR Directive, 
ARPC complied with the portion relative to the removal of the 
contested OPRs. Additionally, in compliance with AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, ARPC replaced the voided 
reports with Air Force Forms 77 to document the administrative gap 
created. These forms were prepared on 10 May 96 and added to the 
applicant’s official record in the Automated Record Management 
Systems (ARMS) on 22 May 96. ARPC also complied with the provisions 
of the directive related to her continuation on AGR status until 
11 May 94 by adjusting her ANG/USAFR Point Credit Summary to show she 
served in said status through 11 May 94. In doing so, the applicant 
became qualified for an active duty retirement as of that date. 
However, ARPC did not take action at the time on the provisions of 
the directive related to transferring her to the Reserve because the 
applicant was still participating as a traditional member of the ANG; 
the ANG is considered part of the Air Reserve Component and it’s 
officers have Reserve commissions and their appointments are governed 
by AFI 36-2005, Appointment in Commissioned Grades and Designation 
and Assignment in Professional Categories—Reserve of the Air Force 
and United States Air Force. Had ARPC transferred the applicant into 
the Reserve at that time, she would have gone into the Individual 
Ready Reserve (IRR), which is comprised of Participating (Points 
Only) and Non-Participating members. Regardless, the applicant would 
not be in a participating status for pay unless she found a valid 
position. Additionally, the applicant referred to an understanding 
that transferring from the ANG into the Air Force Reserve would reset 
her promotion; however, this is not the case because statuses are 
tied together for promotion consideration. As for the last part of 
the 17 Jan 96 directive pertaining to providing the applicant an SRB, 
ARPC convened an SRB to review the applicant’s updated records on 10 
Jun 96, after the applicant’s effective retirement date of 1 Jun 95. 
As a result, the applicant was recommended for promotion, prompting 
the 1 Oct 96 directive to be issued directing her records to be 
corrected to reflect she was promoted to Lt Col with an effective 
promotion date of 16 Mar 95. ARPC published a promotion order, 
Reserve Order BA—209, dated 8 Apr 97, promoting the applicant 
effective 16 Mar 95. Additionally, the National Guard Bureau (NGB) 
published Special Order AP-119, dated 19 Apr 10, federally 
recognizing the applicant’s promotion to Lt Col with the same 
effective date of rank. Because the applicant was promoted to Lt Col 
with an effective date of 16 Mar 95, recommend her retired rank be 
adjusted. 

 


A complete copy of the AFPC/DPTG evaluation, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit AB. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS: 

 

She again presents a chronological history of events associated with 
her career, reiterates the contentions presented in her original 
application, and takes exception to many of the statements made in 
the Air Force advisory. She was not transferred to a viable position 
with the Reserve in accordance with the 17 Jan 96 AFBCMR directive, 
given counseling, or afforded the opportunity to elect her own 
status. Her return to duty on 12 May 94 was required to implement 
the 17 Jan 96 AFBCMR directive. She became a Lt Col as of 16 Mar 95, 
yet remained retired as a major. She should receive full service 
credit/pay as a Lt Col as of the effective date of her 16 Mar 95 
promotion. At a minimum, she should be restored to duty giving her a 
fair opportunity to become a colonel, and have her records corrected 
so as to convey the resultant pay and benefits. She also submitted 
explanations of personnel programs effective in 1990 and resubmitted 
a letter from her counsel from 20 May 96. (Exhibit AC). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. After careful consideration of applicant’s request and the 
evidence of record, we find the application is untimely filed. The 
Board directive which serves as the basis for the applicant’s most 
recent request was issued on 1 Oct 96. The applicant’s last 
application to the Board concerning the issues at hand is dated 14 
Nov 97. On 9 Feb 00, the Board notified the applicant she had 
submitted insufficient evidence of an error or injustice to warrant 
corrective action and that the Board decision did not preclude an 
additional request of reconsideration. Thus, the applicant was fully 
aware of the status of her military record and any perceived error or 
injustice in February 2000, and from that point had a three-year time 
period in which to file an application for reconsideration. The 
applicant’s current application is dated 18 Jan 12, some 16 years 
after the issuance of the first directive in her case and almost 
12 years after the Board notified her their 9 Feb 00 decision did not 
preclude her from requesting reconsideration. It is clear the 
applicant did not file within three years after the alleged error or 
injustice was discovered, as required by Title 10, United States 
Code, Section 1552 and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, nor has she 
shown a sufficient reason for the delay in filing. Although this 
Board has, in the past, gone to great lengths to provide relief to 
applicants, recent Congressional mandates have limited the Board’s 
latitude--including the Board’s mandate to process 90 percent of its 
cases within 10 months and to allow the processing of no case to 
exceed the 18-month point. The time it takes to process an 
application is no longer an infinite resource. See United States v. 
Keane, 852 F.2d 199, 205 (7th Cir. 1988)(“We live in a world of 


scarcity, one in which that most inflexible commodity, time itself, 
sets a limit on our ability to prevent and correct mistakes.”) 
Therefore, we do not find a sufficient basis to waive the failure to 
timely file and consider the case on its merits. 

 

2. We are also not persuaded the record raises issues of an error or 
an injustice that warrant further action on part of the Board. The 
Board acknowledges the Air Force did not complete all required 
implementation actions in response to the 1 Oct 96 issuance of AFBCMR 
94-02998; however, the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) is 
administratively correcting the applicant’s record by voiding and 
removing the orders retiring her in the grade of major and replacing 
them with orders retiring her in the grade of Lt Col, and are 
ensuring the applicant’s records are free of inappropriate documents. 
ARPC’s administrative action will result in the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service (DFAS) reviewing the applicant’s records to 
determine if she is entitled to any monetary benefits as a result of 
the correction of records. However, regarding the remainder of the 
applicant’s requests for relief, further relief beyond the stated 
administrative actions is not warranted because the application is 
untimely filed. 

 

3. 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. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The application was not timely filed and it would not be in the 
interest of justice to waive the untimeliness. It is the decision of 
the Board, therefore, to reject the application as untimely. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 


The following members of the Board considered the applicant’s request 
for reconsideration of AFBCMR Docket Number BC-1994-02998 in 
Executive Session on 22 May 13, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit Z. Second Addendum to Record of Proceedings, 
dated 9 Feb 00. 

 Exhibit AA. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jan 12, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit AB. Letter, ARPC/DPTG, undated. 

 Exhibit AC. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 10 Apr 13. 

 Exhibit AD. Letter, Applicant, dated 10 May 13. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair