RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2012-02029 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His second deferral for promotion to the grade of major (O-4) be 
vacated and he receive promotion consideration by a Special 
Selection Board (SSB). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He was recently non-selected for promotion by his second 
promotion board; however, he accepted an assignment into the 
Individual Mobilization Augmentee (IMA) program shortly 
thereafter and was able to enroll in Squadron Officer School 
(SOS). Prior to this time he did not have access to my required 
professional military education (PME). As such, the promotion 
board was not able to consider this material information and it 
should be available in considering his potential for promotion. 
This comparison did not allow for a fair and equitable 
consideration. 

 

The applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Air Force Reserve in 
the grade of captain (O-3). 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application are 
contained in the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the 
Air Force, which is attached at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

ARFC/DPTT recommends denial indicating there is no evidence of an 
error or injustice. The applicant was considered and not 
selected for promotion to the grade of major by the Calendar Year 
2011 (CY11) and CY12 Line Health Professions Nonparticipating 


Reserve Major Promotion Selection Boards. While he obtained a 
Reserve position in March 2012 and enrolled in SOS, the promotion 
board cannot consider events and information that take place 
after it adjourns and these events do not form a legitimate basis 
to grant SSB consideration. 

 

ARPC/DPTT's complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 25 Jun 12, for review and comment within 30 days. As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice. We took 
notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and the 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. The 
applicant’s contentions are duly noted, however, these assertions 
and the documentation provided are not sufficient to convince us 
the applicant has been the victim of an error or injustice when 
compared to others similarly situated. 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 issue(s) 
involved. Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably 
considered. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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-2012-02029 in Executive Session on 7 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 1 May 12. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, ARPC/PB, dated 11 Jun 12. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 25 Jun 12. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair