RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03049 

 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: YES 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Education/Training Report rendered for the period 23 Feb 89 
– 16 May 90 be revised and he be given Special Selection Board 
(SSB) consideration. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His AF Form 475, Education/Training Report, contains clerical 
errors. The terms “satisfactory, average and good,” is 
contradictory to his status as the #1 graduate in his class, 
resulting in him being less competitive for promotion. 

 

He was the #1 graduate from his Fixed Wing Qualification 
Training (FWQT) class and his training report should have 
reflected his correct graduate status. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
AF Form 475, dated 16 May 90; a letter from his former FWQT 
Flight Commander, dated 13 Aug 10, and Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09) 
Reserve Colonels Board Results. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant, while serving as a captain was rendered a 
Training Report (TR) for the period 23 Feb 89 through 16 May 90. 

 

He was promoted to the grade of major by the in-the-promotion 
zone (IPZ) Calendar Year 1994A (CY94A) Central Selection Board 
(CSB). He was considered and non-selected to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) CY097C 
Lieutenant Colonel CSB. 

 

The applicant separated from active duty on 23 Oct 97. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 


 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial, stating, in part, that there is no 
evidence that the report was unjust or inaccurate. They note 
the training was completed over 20 years ago. Although, the 
applicant has provided a memorandum from his former flight 
commander at the time, it states that he only provided inputs to 
the applicant’s draft TR before sending it to leadership for 
signature. However, in accordance with the governing 
instruction, it is at the discretion of the evaluator who is 
designated to sign as the evaluator on the TR to determine what 
is placed on the evaluation. Even though the flight commander 
provided input, it is not mandatory for the evaluator to use the 
inputs provided. 

 

In addition, they note, to successfully challenge the validity 
of an evaluation report, it is important to hear from the 
evaluators, not necessarily for support, but for 
clarification/explanation. The applicant has not provided such 
documentation. Without this, they concluded the TR is accurate 
as written. 

 

The complete AFPC/DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. They note their recommendation to 
deny SSB consideration is based on DPSID’s recommendation to 
deny a change to the TR. In addition, given the unlikelihood of 
success on the merits, they strongly recommend the Board find 
that it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the 
delay, and deny the application as untimely. 

 

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 5 Nov 10 for review and comment within 30 days. As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office 
(Exhibit E). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

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 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 recommendation 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility and adopt 
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the 
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. 
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-2010-03049 in Executive Session on 28 April 2011, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Jul 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 4 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 14 Oct 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Nov 10.