RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2020-03368

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL: NONE	 

  	HEARING REQUESTED: YES	

APPLICANT’S REQUEST

1.   He be allowed to complete Air Command and Staff College (ACSC) via correspondence.

2.   He receive special selection board (SSB) consideration for promotion and retirement in the grade of lieutenant colonel (O-5).  

APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

In 2004, the ACSC course examinations were compromised and new test questions were created.  The new examination questions were lengthy and vague.  Questions were later removed due to poor wording.  He made several attempts to complete the course before the new questions were vetted but failed each time.  A colleague recently told him about the current structure that is quite different than in 2004.  He requests he be allowed to complete the course via correspondence and be reconsidered for (retired) promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.  He is confident the reason he was not promoted was because he lacked the ACSC professional military education (PME) course.  

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is a retired Air Force Reserve major (O-4).  

On 2 Aug 07, the applicant was notified due to his second deferral for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel, he would be automatically transferred to the Retired Reserve list on his adjusted mandatory separation date (MSD) of 1 Mar 08, in accordance with 10 U.S.C. § 14506.  The notification letter states the specific reasons why he was not recommended for promotion were known only to the combined membership of the board.

Per Reserve Order EK-0712 dated 1 Nov 07, the applicant was transferred to the Retired Reserve List on 1 Mar 08, eligible for retired pay except for attainment of age 60.

For more information, see the excerpt of the applicant’s record at Exhibit B and the advisory at Exhibit C.

APPLICABLE AUTHORITY/GUIDANCE

Per 10 U.S.C. § 14506. Effect of failure of selection for promotion: Each Reserve officer of the Air Force Reserve who holds the grade of major who has failed selection to the next higher grade for the second time and whose name is not on a list of officers recommended for promotion to the next higher grade shall, if not earlier be removed from the Reserve Active-Status List (RASL) on the later of: (1) the first day of the month after the month in which the officer completes 20 years of commissioned service or (2) the first day of the seventh month after the month in which the President approved the report of the board which considered the officer for the second time.  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION

ARPC/PB recommends denial for SSB.  The applicant’s promotion record met the FY07 and FY08 promotion boards correctly.  The Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) directs boards to use the “whole person concept” when deciding promotion potential.  There is no requirement per AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the Reserve of the Air Force, for completion of ACSC.  Paragraph 5.11.3, also states a major, twice deferred for promotion to lieutenant colonel and not in a continued status will be removed from the RASL on the first day of the month after the month the officer completes 20 years of commissioned service.  

The complete advisory opinion, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION

The Board sent a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant on 30 Jul 21 for comment (Exhibit D), and the applicant replied on 9 Aug 21.  In his response, he states he understands there is no requirement to complete ACSC in order to meet a promotion board.  His point is at that time, not one single officer in the grade of major was promoted to lieutenant colonel without having completed ACSC.  After numerous tries, his failure to complete the new version of ACSC by correspondence gave him zero chance of being promoted.  He asks to be allowed to complete ACSC and be reconsidered for promotion.  If he is passed over for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel with his record that includes ACSC completion, he would be willing to accept the decision.  

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

1.  The application was not timely filed.

2.  The applicant exhausted all available non-judicial relief before applying to the Board.

3.  After reviewing all Exhibits, the Board concludes the applicant is not the victim of an error or injustice.  The Board concurs with the rationale and recommendation of ARPC/PB and finds a preponderance of the evidence does not substantiate the applicant’s contentions.  The Board also finds no evidence the applicant’s failure to complete ACSC by correspondence prior to his promotion board was due to the fault of the Air Force.  Further, the applicant’s argument his request should be granted based on the current structure of the course is without merit.  The Board also notes the applicant did not file the application within three years of discovering the alleged error or injustice, as required by Section 1552 of Title 10, United States Code, and Air Force Instruction 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  The Board does not find it in the interest of justice to waive the three-year filing requirement.  Therefore, the Board finds the application untimely and recommends against correcting the applicant’s records.

4.  The applicant has not shown a personal appearance, with or without counsel, would materially add to the Board’s understanding of the issues involved.

RECOMMENDATION

The Board recommends informing the applicant the application was not timely filed; it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the delay; and the Board will reconsider the application only upon receipt of relevant evidence not already presented.

CERTIFICATION

The following quorum of the Board, as defined in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2603, Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR), paragraph 1.5, considered Docket Number BC-2020-03368 in Executive Session on 18 Aug 21:

 , Panel Chair
 , Panel Member
 , Panel Member

All members voted against correcting the record.  The panel considered the following:

Exhibit A:	Application, DD Form 149, w/atchs, dated 9 Oct 20.
Exhibit B:	Documentary evidence, including relevant excerpts from official records.
Exhibit C:	Advisory Opinion, ARPC/PB, w/atchs, dated 22 Jul 21.
Exhibit D:	Notification of Advisory, SAF/MRBC to Applicant, dated 30 Jul 21.
Exhibit E:	Applicant’s Response, dated 9 Aug 21.

Taken together with all Exhibits, this document constitutes the true and complete Record of Proceedings, as required by AFI 36-2603, paragraph 4.11.9.