t 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  95-00441 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1.  His nonselection f o r   promotion to the grade of major by the 
Calendar Year 1994A (CY94A) Major Board be declared void. 
2.  The citations for the Air  Force Commendation Medal  (AFCM) , 
First Oak Leaf Cluster (loLC), and the Air Medal  (AM)  be added to 
his Officer Selection Record  (OSR) as it met  the Calendar Year 
1994A (CY94A) Major Board. 

- 

3.  He be promoted to the grade of major as if selected by the 
CY94A Major Board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The above data were in error or missing from his records when his 
records met the CY94A Major Board.  He also contends that, since 
filing  this  petition,  he  was  the  victim  of  illegal Management 
Level Evaluation Board  (MLEB)  procedures and challenges what he 
be 1 ieves  to  be  ‘5 1 legal  command  indorsement  special  promot e 
recommendations,  alleging  a  system  where  stratification  of 
“promote” recommendations occurred in violation of  the existing 
regulation (AFR 36-10).  Illegal procedures used at the CY94 MLEB 
and  central promotion board directly contributed to his initial 
nonselection. 

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant’s Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date  is 
17 Jan 83.  He was considered and not selected for promotion to 
the grade of major by the CY94A  (22 Aug 94) Major Board.  He was 
considered and  selected  f o r   promotion to  the grade of  major by 
the CY95A  (5 Jun 95) Major Selection Board. 

, 

AFBCMR  95- 00441 

Applicant’s Officer  Effective  Report  (OER) /Officer  Performance 
Report  (OPR) profile since 1985 follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 

Training Report  (TR) 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
- 

20 Jun 85 
20 Dec 85 
20 Dec 86 
20 Dec 87 
1 Dec 88 
1 Dec 89 
15 Jul 90 
26 Jun 91 
26 Jun 92 
23 Jun 93 
*  23 Jun 94 
**  5 Mar 95 

* 
**  Top report on file at time of CY94A Major Board. 
Top report on file at time of CY95A Major Board. 

The  citation  for  the  AM  covered  the  period  1 Apr  94  through 
17 May 94 and was awarded by special order 363, dated 26 Jul 94. 
The citation for the AM  was filed in applicant‘s OSR on 9 Sep 94. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief, Reports &  Quiries Team, AFMPC/DPMRI, indicated that, 
based on the OPRs in applicant‘s Officer Selection Folder  (OSF) , 
they changed his duty titles as requested (see Exhibit C). 
The  Chief,  BCMR  &  SSB  Section,  AFMPC/DPPPAB,  reviewed  this 
application and indicated that regarding the missing citation for 
the  AFCM,  loLC, applicant  states  that  he  faxed  a  copy of  the 
special order to the Officer Promotions Section on 15 Aug  94 for 
inclusion in his OSR and it was not filed in the OSR until 28 Sep 
94.  They  point  out  that  the  purpose  of  having  a  citation 
included  in  the  record  is  not  to  allow  board  members  the 
opportunity to peruse the comments thereon, although they may do 
so if they are so inclined.  Rather, the purpose is to make them 
aware of the significance of the award.  AFI 36-2608, Table A2.1, 
Item 329, specifically cites that orders granting decorations may 
be  filed and maintained  when a  like citation is not available. 
This speaks to the “knowledgeN that an award was given as opposed 
to the “contents“ contained in the award citation.  Accordingly, 
evidence of an award within the OSR speaks to the award itself, 
not what  the citation may or may  not reveal.  The applicant is 
correct in stating that the citation for the AFCM, loLC, was not 
on  file.  However, the  award was  in  evidence before  the  CY94A 
board.  The decoration was listed on the Officer Selection Brief 
Therefore,  the  board 
(OSB)  assessed  by  the  board  members. 

2 

\ 

AFBCMR  95- 00441 

members  were  knowledgeable  the  award  was  given  which  is  the 
ultimate  purpose  of  including  them  in  the  promotion  selection 
process.  Since the board members were aware of the decoration, 
it was factored into their promotion evaluation. 

Regarding the missing citation for the AM,  this citation covered 
the period 1 Apr 94 through 17 May 94 and was awarded by special 
order  363,  dated  26 Jul  94.  AFI  36-2803,  Figure  3.1,  Note  4,  , 
states, an  award  citation  is  required  to  be  filed  in the  OSR 
within 6 0   days after the date of the awarding order or, in this 
case,  24 Sep  94. 
The  citation  for  the  AM  was  filed  in 
applicant‘s OSR  on 9 Sep 94.  Furthermore, AFI 36-2803, paragraph 
3.1,  states  recommendations  should  be  entered  into  official 
channels within two years and awarded within three years of the 
act, achievement, or service performed.  Clearly the decoration 
in question was processed and placed  in his records within  the 
parameters outlined in the governing directive.  They would also 
like to point out that, after a review of applicant‘s OSR, a copy 
of the Aerial Achievement Medal  (AAM)  citation was found in the 
OSR  with a file date of  16 Aug  94--one day after the applicant 
states he faxed a copy of the AM  to AFMPC/DPPPOO.  They wonder if 
the AAM  was erroneously faxed versus the AM. 
In reference to the assignment history not being reflected on the 
OSR, the board members were cognizant of the applicant‘s correct 
duty titles.  It should be noted that every officer receives an 
Officer  Preselection  Brief  (OPB)  several  months  prior  to  a 
selection board.  The OPB  contains data that will appear on the 
OSB at the central board.  Written instructions attached to the 
OPB and given to the officer before the central selection board 
specifically instruct him/her to carefully examine the brief for 
completeness and accuracy.  If any errors are found, he/she must 
take corrective action prior to  the  selection board, not  after 
it.  The  instructions specifically state, “Officers will  not  be 
considered  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  if,  in  exercising 
reasonable  diligence,  the  officer  should  have  discovered  the 
error or omission  in his/her  records and could have  taken timely 
corrective  action”  (emphasis added) .  It  appea’rs the  applicant 
did  not  take  action  to  correct  his  assignment  history  entries 
until after the board.  He states that he attempted several times 
to correct his duty title history.  While he indicates that being 
physically  separated  from  his  servicing  MPF  created  several 
problems and the requested changes were never made, he provides 
no evidence that he attempted to correct the contested data prior 
to  the board.  Furthermore, they believe  he  had  ample  time  to 
correct his record prior to the board.  In fact, he had at least 
two previous opportunities to review and correct his records as 
he  received  preselection  briefs  before  his  below-the-promotion 
zone considerations in 1992 and  1993; yet, he  has not provided 
any documentation to show his efforts to change his duty titles. 
Also, the  applicant  could  have  included  this  information  in  a 
letter to the board president, L e . ,  “I wish to inform the board 
I  have  mailed/faxed  the 
of  the  award  of  two  decorations. 

3 

, 

AFBCMR  9 5 - 0 0 4 4 1  

decorations to AFMPC; however, in the event they are not included 
in my  record prior to  it being  scored,. . .I would  also like to 
point out corrections to my duty history for the periods . . .  I have 
been  working  with  my  servicing  MPF  to  have  these  corrections 
made; however, in the event they are not included in my OSB prior 
to my record being scored, . . . I , .  
While  the AFCM, loLC, and AM  were not  included in the OSR,  and  , 
the AM  and changes to applicant’s duty history were not reflected 
on the  OSB, it  is highly unlikely they were  the causes of  his 
nonselection. 
Central  boards  evaluate  the  entire  record  to 
assess whole person factors such as job  performance, professional 
qualities,  depth  and  breadth  of  experience,  leadership,  and 
academic  and  professional  military  education. 
Based  on  the 
evidence  provided,  they  recommend  the  Board  deny  applicant s 
request. 

A complete copy of the Air Force evafuation, with attachments, is 
attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the Air  Force evaluation and provided  a 
16-page  rebuttal. 
He  also  indicated  that  since  filing  his 
petition, he  learned that in addition to errors detailed in his 
initial DD Form 149, illegal procedures used at the CY94 MLEB and 
central promotion board also directly contributed to his initial 
nonselection and he requests that the Board direct his record be 
corrected  to  reflect  selection  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of 
major as if selected by the CY94A Major Board  (see Exhibit F). 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief ,  Evaluation Boards Section, AFPC/DPPPEB, reviewed this 
application and indicated that one of the charges of the Officer 
Evaluation  System  (OES)  Review  Group  was  to  eliminate  any 
negative  perceptions  of  the  OES  and  to  ensure  it  was  being 
implemented  fairly  and  equitably  across  the  Air  Force. 
In 
accordance with AFR 36-10, page 1, the concern of special command 
indorsements  or  “stratification”  was  raised  through  normal 
command  channels  identifying  it  as  an  area  that  may  require  a 
potential change.  This group looked at the utilization of MAJCOM 
(major command) indorsements and noted they were not being used 
consistently throughout the Air Force.  However, these statements 
were never prohibited  or encouraged by AFR  36-10.  The dilemma 
faced by  the group was  how to  standardize this practice.  They 
elected to prohibit these comments at the management level since 
senior raters, not management levels, are solely responsible for 
making  a promotion recommendation.  The Review Group determined 

4 

AFBCMR  95- 00441 

' I .  

that senior raters, however, could continue the practice of rank 
ordering their eligibles. 
The  applicant  states  \\ . 1.  . the  MAJCOM  special  promote  systems 
effectively  \took away'  promotions from officers who received a 
legitimate promote  recommendation" and  he  continues by  stating 
these procedures were illegal.  To the contrary, paragraph 4-13b 
states  management  levels  must  review  all  in-the-promotion  , 
(IPZ) /above-the-promotion zone  (APZ) records  of  performance  to 
identify and  discuss with  appropriate senior raters those  PRFs 
that  appear  to  contain  comments  that  are  exaggerated  o r  
unrealistic, do not  support  the  overall recommendation and  are 
not supported by members'  record of performance.  Paragraph 4-14 
goes  on  to  state  \\in all  cases, a  senior rater  has  the  final 
authority  to  determine  the  content  of  the  PRFs  he  o r   she 
prepares. . . 
This  provision  provided  the  latitude  f o r  
management levels to rank order promotes since the senior rater 
served  as  a  member  of  the  MLEB.  -  The  applicant  states  the 
promotion  quotas  for  officers  with  \\legitimate" promote 
recommendations  were  cut  dramatically  in  comparison  to  the 
officers who receive "special promote" recommendations.  Although 
the  package  contains a  Stratified  Select  Rate  Chart  for  1993, 
they  are  unable  to  verify  its  source. 
Additionally,  the 
applicant is contesting the 1994 board  results to major and the 
chart  reflects  1993  statistics  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel.  Furthermore, this  chart  does not  reflect  significant 
statistical  variances  in  promotion  by  MAJCOMs. 
One  should 
expect,  however,  that  those  records  which  are  competed  f o r  
additional  definitely  promotes  (DPs) at  the  management  level 
would  be  stronger  than  those  who  receive  a  promote  outright. 
Unfortunately by law, they are restricted as to how many officers 
they  can  have  on  active  duty.  Some  discrimination  must  take 
place  to  promote  the  best  qualified  officers  and  some  senior 
raters chose to exercise this in the form of rank order comments 
in the PRF.  Since this was an authorized method of strengthening 
a  PRF, there  is no  evidence of  any  impropriety  in those  cases 
where the PRFs were not rank ordered or strengthened with special 
recommendations (see Exhibit G )  . 
The Chief of Operations, Selection Board Secretariat (AFPC/DPPB), 
also  reviewed  this  application  and  indicated  that  it  is  quite 
obvious  that  the  applicant  has  received  counsel  since  his 
accusations  about  the  promotion  board  system  are  virtually 
verbatim  to other applications received of  late.  The applicant 
offers  his  interpretations  of  the  applicable  statutes, 
directives, and  other governing publications -  they are without 
merit.  Legal representatives for the Air Force have reviewed the 
promotion  board  procedures  and  have  determined  they  are  in 
compliance with  governing directives.  It  should be  noted  that 
the promotion board  procedures used  for the  CY94  Central Major 
Board  that  is being  challenged by  the  applicant were  the  very 
same promotion board procedures used  by  the  CY95  Central Major 
Board that selected the applicant for promotion.  The applicant 

5 

AFBCMR 95- 00441 

apparently had no problem accepting the promotion and the results 
of the CY95 board  (see Exhibit H) . 
The Chief, BCMR  &  SSB Section, AFPC/DPPPA, again  reviewed  this 
application  and  indicated  that  the  applicant  contends  that  he 
was,  in  fact,  diligent  in  maintaining  the  accuracy  of  his 
records.  He also states he cannot be afforded fair treatment by 
a Special Selection Board  (SSB) and should be directly promoted  , 
to major as if selected by the CY94A Major Board.  They point out 
that  the  applicant provides  no  evidence to  support any of  the 
claims  made  in  his  rebuttal  to  the  17 Sep  95  advisory. 
A 
restatement of his allegations does not constitute evidence.  His 
contention  that  the  SSB  system  is  illegal  is unfounded.  The 
process  in place  in  the  Air  Force  to  reconsider members  with 
errors in their records is the SSB system and  it is not within 
the applicant's  discretion to choose the manner  in which he  is 
considered  for promotion.  Furthermore, his  request  for  direct 
promotion  does  not  correlate  to  -his  charge  of  an  illegal 
promotion system.  If the entire Air Force promotion system were 
found to be in violation of regulations, the remedy would not be 
the automatic promotion of  the applicant.  They do not believe 
the  applicant  has  exercised  reasonable  diligence  in  the 
maintenance  of  his  records and  they  still  contend  that  if  the 
Board  should  decide  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  further 
promotion opportunity, an SSB composed of senior officers is the 
most  advantageous  position  from  which  to  render  the  decision 
regarding his promotion potential at the time of the CY94A board. 
No new evidence is provided that affects their previous advisory 
opinion (see Exhibit I). 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the additional Air Force evaluations and 
provided a two-page rebuttal (see Exhibit K) . 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief of Operations, Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, 
again  reviewed  this  application  and  indicated  that  the 
applicant's latest rebuttal to the advisories previously written 
offers no new supporting evidence.  Therefore ,  their off ice can 
add nothing to their previous advisory (see Exhibit L). 

The  Chief,  Evaluations  Boards  Section,  AFPC/DPPPEB,  again 
reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant's case 
appears  to  copy  earlier  conveniently-reasoned,  commercially 
prepared cases which also challenged management  level evaluation 
board  legality  without  any  direct  reference  as  to  how  the 
individual applicant was treated unfairly by  the process.  They 

6 

AFBCMR  95-00441 

4 

can only address the technical aspects of this case as related to 
the allegations contained in the case.  First of all, the use of 
command indorsements or PRF stratification was neither prohibited 
nor  encouraged  by  AFR  36-10  and  a  command  supplement was  not 
required.  This  practice  was  reviewed  by  the  1995  OES  Review 
Group commissioned by the CSAF and determined to be in compliance 
with the governing directives. 

The  applicant  cites  paragraph  4-13(b) as  the  authority  which 
precludes  awarding  "MAJCOM  indorsements"  on  PRFs . 
However , 
paragraph 4-14(b) states  'in  all  cases, a  senior rater has the 
final authority to determine the content of  the PRFs he or she 
prepares ..."  Since  the  senior  raters  were  present  during  the 
MLEB proceedings and signed the reaccomplished PRFs, the latitude 
f o r   rank  orderings  of  promotes  during  these  proceedings  was 
provided.  The applicant has provided  documents to support his 
contention  that  officers  with  'Top  Promote"  statements  in  the 
narrative of their PRF were selected- for promotion at a rate of 
nearly  five  times  those  officers  who  received  "Promote" 
recommendations  with  no  stratified  comments. 
They  cannot 
validate  the  source or accuracy of  these  statistics since PRFs 
are tracked with only one of the three ratings contained in AFR 
36-10, paragraph 4-3 (d) .  One should expect, however, that those 
records that are competed for additional "DPs" at the management 
level  would  be  stronger than  those  officers who  receive a  "P" 
outright  o r   do  not  score  in  the  top  20  percent  at  the  MLEB. 
Unfortunately by law, they are restricted as to how many officers 
they  can  have  on  active  duty.  Some  discrimination must  take 
place  to promote  the  best  qualified  officers.  Because of  the 
limited numbers of DP recommendations available, not everyone is 
going to get one.  Some management levels allowed senior raters 
to make such comments as \\top 10 percent of  \P' in the command", 
in the narrative section of the PRF, and the key to getting one 
of  these  statements  was  to  rank  high  enough  from  the  board 
results.  They  state  that  the  applicant's  request  should  be 
denied.  The  new  evidence  provided  does  not  substantiate  his 
allegations or prove that he was treated unfairly by the OES  (see 
Exhibit M) . 
The Staff Judge Advocate, AFPC/JA, also reviewed this application 
and indicated that, at the outset, the entire Air Force promotion 
recommendation part of the Air Force OES is totally a creature of 
AFR;  it  is  not  governed  at  all  by  statute  or  Department  of 
Defense  (DOD) directive.  Consequently,  its  "legality" can  be 
tested solely by virtue of whether the Air Force has followed its 
own  regulation. 
The  applicant  argues  that  the  top  promote 
program  was  improper  because  it  was  neither  authorized  nor 
applied  uniformly across  the  Air  Force.  As  a  consequence, he 
argues, he  was  at  a  competitive  disadvantage  in  competing for 
these  recommendations  since  other  commands  had  different  "top 
promote"  quotas. 
While  it  is  true  that  AF/CC,  upon  the 
recommendation of the OES Review Group, eventually eliminated the 
stratification  system  at  management  levels,  it  was  because  of 

7 

AFBCMR  95- 00441 

feared  problems  with  perceptions  of  fairness, not  because  the 
system was illegal.  The system that was used  in many commands, 
though ultimately abandoned, never operated in contravention of 
the  governing  Air  Force  regulation,  AFR  36-10. 
They  have 
previously  opined  that, by  its very  terms, the  regulation does 
not  prohibit  the  use  of' stratified  "promote"  recommendations; 
i. e. ,  delineating  among  \\promotes" to  describe  a  particular 
officer's  relative potential meets  the  regulation's  requirement 
for an assessment of  the ratee's  performance-based potential to  4 
support  the  overall  promotion  recommendation,  and  it  violates 
neither the letter nor spirit of any portion of the regulation. 

The  rest  of  the  applicant's  brief  presents  the  now  familiar 
arguments that the Air Force's promotion board procedures violate 
both statute and DOD Directive.  He begins with a contention that 
Air  Force  promotion  boards  violate  10  USC  616  and  617. 
Specifically,  he  argues  that  promotion  board  panels  operate 
independently of one another, thereby rendering as impossible the 
promotion  recommendation by  "a majority  of  the  members  of  the 
board"  mandated  by  10  USC  616  or  the  resulting  certification 
required by  10 USC  617.  In response, they note  first that no 
provision of law exists that specifically requires each member of 
a promotion board  to personally  review and  score the record of 
each  officer  being  considered  by  the  board.  The  House  Armed 
Services Committee Report  (97-141) that  accompanied the Defense 
Officer  Personnel Management  Act  (DOPMA) Technical  Corrections 
Act  (Public Law 97-22) specifically references panels as a type 
of administrative subdivision of selection boards.  Consequently, 
it  is  clear  that  at  the  time  DOPMA was  enacted, Congress  was 
certainly aware of  the  existence of  promotion board  panels and 
expressed no problem with them.  Furthermore, the language of 10 
USC 616(a) and  (c) (the recommendation for promotion of officers 
by  selection boards), not  just  617(a)  (the certification  by  a 
majority of  the members of  the board) ,  speaks to  the corporate 
board and not to individual members.  In essence, a majority of 
the board must recommend an officer for promotion and each member 
is required to  certify that  the  corporate board  has considered 
each record, and that the board members, in their opinion, have 
recommended  those  officers  who  "are  best  qualified  for 
promotion."  The members  are not  required  to  reach  this point 
through an individual examination of every record, although they 
may do so.  Rather, based on their overall participation in the 
board's deliberations, and the fact that the process involves the 
random  assignment  of  officer  selection  records  to  panels  to 
achieve  relatively equal quality  and  procedures  to  ensure  that 
the  quality  of  the  record  of  those  officers  recommended  for 
selection among the panels is essentially identical, the members 
are in a position to honestly certify that the process in which 
they participated properly identified, based on the record before 
them, those officers who were best qualified for promotion.  In 
their opinion, that is enough to assure compliance with all the 
statutory requirements. 

8 

Regarding applicant's allegations that the Air Force violated DOD 
Directive 1320.12 by convening panels and not separate promotion 
boards  to  consider  the  various  competitive  categories,  the 
relevant portion of the Directive provides: 

POLICY 

a.  C e n t r a l i z e d   Selection.  To ensure fairness in the  , 

promotion selection process and a balanced appraisal of the needs 
of  the  Military  Service  concerned,  a  single  board  shall  be 
convened to consider all eligible officers in the same grade and 
competitive category for promotion to grades above captain in the 
Army,  Air  Force,  or  Marine  Corps; or  lieutenant  in  the  Navy, 
except that: 

b. 

Concurrent  Boards.  Selection boards convened for 
different  competitive  categories  or  grades  may  be  convened 
concurrently when practicable at the-discretion of the Secretary 
of the Military Department concerned. 

Applicant argues that  the Air Force promotion board was illegal 
because  the  Air  Force  convened  a  single  board  consisting  of 
panels rather than convening separate boards as required by  the 
DOD Directive.  In their opinion, this argument is without merit. 
It  is clear that  the  directive's  purpose  in  requiring separate 
boards  for  each  competitive  category-to  assure  fairness  and 
compliance with  Title  10, Chapter  36  (particularly Section 621 
requirements).  In truth, nomenclature notwithstanding, the Air 
Force's  competitive  category  "panels,  which  are  convened 
concurrently as permitted by the Directive, fully accomplish this 
stated  purpose;  L e . ,   members  of  each  competitive  category 
compete  within  their  respective  "panel"  only  against  other 
officers of  that  same category.  In fact, each  of  the  nonline 
competitive panels are panels in name only; they-along with the 
line competitive category panels-are actually separate promotion 
boards  for  purposes  of  the  statutes  and  DOD  Directive. 
Consequently,  they  fulfill  all  the  requisite  statutory  and 
regulatory requirements. 

Applicant next attacks as error the role of the board president 
in the Air  Force promotion process, in particular, arguing that 
the board  president's  duties  in the Air  Force process violates 
DOD  Directive  1320.12,  Section  F,  paragraph  2(a) (1).  They 
disagree.  The  duties  prescribed  for  board  presidents  by  Air 
Force  directives  do  require  the  president  to  perform  several 
critical duties relative to board scoring.  Those duties do not, 
however, in any manner, constrain the board from recommending for 
promotion the best  qualified among the fully qualified officers 
being  considered.  Applicant  has  offered  no  proof  that  the 
president of this or any Air Force selection board has ever acted 
contrary to law or regulation.  In the absence of evidence to the 
contrary, the board president and other members of the board are 

1 

9 

AFBCMR  95- 00441 

entitled to  the presumption that they carried out  their duties 
and responsibilities properly and according to law. 

Finally,  applicant  claims  that  his  nonselection  cannot  be 
remedied by  SSB  consideration.  He  bases  this on  two reasons: 
(1) the  benchmark  records  that  would  be  used  in  an  SSB  are 
invalid because the original promotion boards that rendered them 
were illegal; and  (2) scoring procedures used by Air Force SSBs 
are arbitrary and capricious.  They cannot address these issues 
without first reiterating their strong belief that applicant has 
not provided  a meritorious application warranting  the need  for 
any relief.  As for the merits of these claims, in their opinion, 
the  Air  Force's  SSB  procedure  fully  comports with  the  10  USC 
628(a) (2) requirement that an officer's  "record be compared with 
a  sampling  of  the  records  of  those  officers  of  the  same 
competitive  category  who  were  recommended  for  promotion,  and 
those  officers who  were  not  recommended  for promotion, by  the 
The burden  is on the 
board  that  should have  considered h-im". 
applicant to prove otherwise, and he has failed to do so. 

, 

Regarding applicant's request for direct promotion, both Congress 
and  DOD  have  made  clear  their  intent  that  errors  ultimately 
affecting promotion should be  resolved through the use of SSBs. 
Moreover, they have repeatedly agreed with AF/JAG that the AFBCMR 
is  not  in  the  appropriate  position  to  grant  a  direct 
promotion-that  in  promotion  matters,  the  Board's  statutory 
authority should be limited to correcting military records which 
may  have  affected  the  promotion  process,  and  recommending  SSB 
consideration in appropriate cases.  The United States Court of 
Federal Claims concurs in this.  Otherwise, the AFBCMR-which is 
not comprised in accordance with 10 USC 612 and has no basis for 
comparing  an 
his 
competitors-would be essentially usurping the statutory power of 
promotion  boards.  At  a  minimum,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the 
AFBCMR has not, in the past  (and likely will not in the future) 
considered  direct  promotion  except  in  the  most  extraordinary 
circumstances  where  SSB  consideration  was  deemed  totally 
unworkable and  the applicant's  case clearly does not  fall into 
that category. 

record  with 

applicant's 

those  of 

In summary, the applicant has failed to present relevant evidence 
proving  the  existence of  any error or injustice prejudicial to 
his  substantial  rights  with  respect  to  the  promotion 
recommendation and promotion processes  that considered him.  On 
that basis, they recommend that  the  application be  denied  (see 
Exhibit N) . 

10 

AFBCMR  95- 00441 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL A I R   FORCE EVALUATION: 
Copies of the additional Air Force evaluations were forwarded to 
applicant on 2 Jun 97 for review and response.  As of this date, 
no response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

4 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
thoroughly reviewing applicant's complete submission, we are not 
persuaded that he  has been  the victim  of either an error or an 
injustice . warranting  favorable  action  of  his  requests. 
The 
applicant's duty history on his OSB for the CY94 Major Selection 
Board  was  incorrect.  However, as noted  by  the  Air  Force, the 
selection board  members  were  aware  of  his  correct  duty  titles 
since they were  reflected on his OPRs which were a part of  his 
OSR.  Therefore, we do not believe the error in his duty history 
on his OSB  constitutes an adequate basis to warrant relief. 
With respect to applicant's contentions regarding the missing 
4. 
citations for the AFCM, loLC, and the AM,  we note the following: 
a.  The Air  Force  has  indicated  that  although  the  citation 
for the AFCM  (1OLC) was not on file, the award was listed on the 
OSB; therefore, the  board  members  were  aware  of  the  award  and 
factored it into their promotion evaluation. 

b.  Further, the Air  Force has  indicated that  the  contested 
AM  was not required to be on file until 24 Sep 94.  We note this 
was  well  after  the  CY94  selection board  would  have  adjourned. 
The Air  Force noted  that, although applicant indicated that he 
datafaxed a copy of  the order awarding the contested AM  to the 
Officer Promotions Section for inclusion into his OSR,  a review 
of his OSR only revealed a copy of  the citation accompanying an 
AAM  which was entered into his file on 16 Aug 94, causing them to 
question whether the AAM  vice the AM  was datafaxed to the Officer 
Promotion Section. 

The Air Force acknowledges that, while the AFCM  (1OLC) and the AM 
were  not  a  part  of  applicant's OSR,  and  changes  to  his  duty 
history  were  not  reflected on  his  OSB,  it  is  highly  unlikely 
these  were  the  causes  for his  nonselection.  In this  respect, 
they note that central boards evaluate the entire officer record. 
After  reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  we  agree  with  the 

11 

AFBCMR  95- 00441 

comments  of  the  Air  Force  and  conclude  that  these  omissions 
constitute nothing more than harmless errors. 

5.  Applicant's  numerous  contentions  concerning  the  statutory 
compliance  of  central  selection  boards,  the  promotion 
recommendation  appeal  process,  and  the  legality  of  the  SSB 
process are duly noted.  However, absent more clear-cut evidence, 
we  do  not  find  these  uncorroborated  assertions,  in  and  by 
themselves,  sufficiently persuasive  to  override  the  rationale 
provided  by  the  Air  Force.  Therefore, we  agree  with  the  Air 
Force  and  adopt  the  rationale  expressed  as  the  basis  for  our 
conclusion that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of 
establishing the  existence of  either  an  error  or  an  injustice 
warranting favorable action on these requests. 

6.  The documentation provided  with this case was  sufficient to 
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved and a 
personal  appearance,  with  or  without  counsel,  would  not  have 
materially added to that understanding.  Therefore, the request 
f o r   a hearing is not favorably considered. 

- 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

The  applicant be  notified  that  the  evidence presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  error  or 
injustice;  that  the  application  was  denied  without  a  personal 
appearance; and  that  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 this application in 
Executive Session on 24 January  1 9 9 7   and  2 9   August  1 9 9 7 ,   under 
the provisions of Air Force Instruction 3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chairman 
Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Member 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Feb 9 5 ,   w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFMPC/DPMRIS, dated 2 2   Feb 9 5 .  
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFMPC/DPPPAB, dated 7  Sep 9 5 ,  
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 25 Oct 9 5 .  
Exhibit F.  Letter from applicant, dated 9  Dec 95, 

w/atchs. 

w/atchs. 

12 

AFBCMR  95- 00441 

Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 
Exhibit I. 
Exhibit J. 
Exhibit K. 
Exhibit L. 
Exhibit M . 
Exhibit N. 
Exhibit 0. 

Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 24 Apr 96. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 6 May 96. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 16 May 96. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 3 Jun 96. 
Letter from applicant, dated 27 Jun 96. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 5 Mar 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 2 Apr 97. 
Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 21 May 97. 

Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2  un 97. 4 4  

4 

C. SAUNDERS 
Chairman 

13 

. 

D E P A R T M E N T   O F   T H E  AIR  FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  A I R   F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

THRU:  SAF/MIBR 

FROM: HQ AFPCDPPB 

550 C Street West  Ste 5 
Randolph AFB TX  781 50-4707 

SUBJEC 

rrection of Military Record 

-- 

Applicant's latest rebuttal, 27 Jun 96, to the advisories previously written by this 

headquarters offers no new supporting evidence.  Therefore, this office can add nothing to our 
advisory of 6 May 96. 

STEVEN E. ROBINSON, Lt Col, USAF 
Chief of Ops, Selection Board Secretariat 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

* ’

 

,  r 

l 
1 

8 

D E P A R T M E N T  O F  THE  A I R   FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  A I R   F O R C E  B A S E  T E X A S  

h 

MEMORANDUM FOR SAFMIBR 
.  AFBCMR 

2 Apr 97 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPEB 

d 

I 

. 

550 C Street West Ste 07 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4709 

lication for Correction of Military Records - 

Reauested Act ion:  The applicant is requesting the nonselection he received at the CY94 Major 
Central Selection Board be declared null and void. 

Basis for Reauest:  The applicant claims ground for relief on the basis of illegal Management 
Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) procedures. 

Background : The member’s case appears to copy earlier conveniently-reasoned, commercially 
prepared cases which also challenged management level evaluation board legality without any 
direct reference as to how the individual applicant was treated unfairly by the process. 

Facts;  We can only address the technical aspects of this case as related to the allegations 
contained in the case.  First of all, the use of command indorsements or PRF stratification was 
neither prohibited nor encouraged by AFR 36-10 and a command supplement was not required. 
This practice was reviewed by the 1995 OES Review Group commissioned by the CSAF, and 
determined to be in compliance with the governing directives. 

The applicant cites paragraph 4- 13(b) as the authority which precludes awarding “MAJCOM 

indorsements” on PRFs.  However, para 4-14(b) states “in all cases, a senior rater has the final 
authority to determine the content of the PRFs he or she prepares...”.  Since the senior raters were 
present during the MLEB proceedings and signed the reaccomplished PRFs, the latitude for rank 
orderings of promotes during these proceedings was provided. 

The applicant has  provided documents to support his contention that officers with “Top 

Promote” statements in the narrative of their PRF were selected for promotion at a rate of nearly 
five times those officers who received “Promote” recommendations with no stratified comments. 
We cannot validate the source or accuracy of these statistics since PRFs are tracked with only 
one of the three ratings contained in AFR 36-10, para 4-3(d).  One should expect 
however, that those records that are competed for additional “DPs” at the management level 

Unfortunately by law, we are restricted as to how many officers we can have on active duty. 

Some discrimination must take place to promote the best qualified officers.  Because of the 
limited numbers of “Definitely Promote” recommendations available, not everyone is going to 
get one.  Some management levels allowed senior raters to make such comments as “top 10 
percent of ‘P’ in the command”, in the narrative section of the PRF, and the key to getting one of 
these statements was to rank high enough from the board results. 

ecommendatioa:  The applicant’s request should be denied.  The new evidence provided does 
not substantiate his allegations or prove that he was treated unfairly by the OES.  If there are any 
questions concerning this issue, please contact me at DSN 487-2753. 

LAURA A. BRANZELL, Capt, USAF 
Chief, Evaluation Boards Section 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

. 

D E P A  R T  M E-N 
H F A D O U A R T E R S z  AIR 
R A N D O L P H   A I  

21 May 1997 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/JA (Mr. Lockwood) 

550 C Street West Suite 44 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-4746 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records - 

This is in response to your letter of 19 Feb 97, requesting our review and comments on 

applicant’s contentions of illegal procedures used at the CY94 MLEB and central promotion 
board.  For the reasons to follow, we can discern no error or injustice warranting relief. 

Applicant’s brief presents arguments familiar to this Board attacking as illegal various 
aspects of the Air Force’s promotion recommendation and promotion board procedures.  He 
begins with a claim that he was the victim of illegal Management Level Evaluation Board 
(MLEB) procedures; i.e., he challenges what he believes to be “illegal, ‘command indorsement 
special promote’ recommendations”-alleging a system where stratification of “promote” 
recommendations occurred in violation of the existing regulation (AFR 36-10).  In particular, he 
states that the “top promote” system was unauthorized, the system was not uniformly applied, 
and he was prejudiced by its use. 

At the outset, the entire Air Force promotion recommendation part of the Air Force 

Officer Evaluation System is totally a creature of Air Force regulation; it is not governed at all by 
statute or DOD directive.  Consequently, its “legality” can be tested solely by virtue of whether 
the Air Force has followed its own regulation.  Applicant argues that the top promote program 
was improper because it was neither authorized nor applied uniformly across the Air Force.  As a 
consequence, he argues, he was at a competitive disadvantage in competing for these 
recommendations since other commands had different “top promote” quotas.  While it is true that 
AFKC, upon the recommendation of the Officer Evaluation System (OES) Review Group, 
eventually eliminated the stratification system at management levels, it was because of feared 
problems with perceptions of fairness, not because the system was illegal.  The system that was 
used in many commands, though ultimately abandoned, never operated in contravention of the 
governing Air Force regulation, AFR 36- 10.  We have previously opined that, by its very terms, 
the regulation does not prohibit the use of stratified “promote” recommendations; Le., delineating 
among “promotes” to describe a particular officer’s relative potential meets the regulation’s 
requirement for an assessment of the ratee’ s performance based potential to support the overall 

promotion recommendation, and it violates neither the letter nor spirit of any portion of the 
regulation. 

The rest of the applicant’s brief presents the now familiar arguments that the Air Force’s 
promotion board procedures violate both statute and DOD Directive.  The author begins with a 
contention that Air Force promotion boards violate  10 U.S.C. 616 and 617.  Specifically, he 
argues that promotion board panels operate independently of one another, thereby rendering as 
impossible the promotion recommendation by “a majority of the members of the board” 
mandated by  10 U.S.C. 616 or the resulting certification required by  10 U.S.C. 617.  In response, 
we note first that no provision of law exists that specifically requires each member of a 
promotion board to personally review and score the record of each officer being considered by 
the board.  The House Armed Services Committee Report (97-141) that accompanied the 
Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) Technical Corrections Act (P.L. 97-22) 
specifically references panels as a type of administrative subdivision of selection boards. 
Consequently, it is clear that at the time DOPMA was enacted, Congress was certainly aware of 
the existence of promotion board panels and expressed no problem with them.  Furthermore, the 
language of 10 U.S.C. 616(a) and (c) (the recommendation for promotion of officers by selection 
boards), not just 61 7(a)  (the certification by a majority of the members of the board), speaks to 
the corporate board and not to individual members.  In essence, a majority of the board must 
recommend an officer for promotion and each member is required to certify that the corporate 
board has considered each record, and that the board members, in their opinion, have 
recommended those officers who “are best qualified for promotion.”  The members are not 
required to reach this point through an individual examination of every record, although they 
may do so.  Rather, based on their overall participation in the board’s deliberations, and the fact 
that the process involves the random assignment of officer selection records to panels to achieve 
relatively equal quality and procedures to insure that the quality of the records of those officers 
recommended for selection among the panels is essentially identical, the members are in a 
position to honestly certify that the process in which they participated properly identified, based 
on the record before them, those officers who were best qualified for promotion.  In OUT opinion, 
that is enough to assure compliance with all the statutory requirements. 

Applicant next alleges that the Air Force violated DOD Directive 1320.12 by convening 

panels and not separate promotion boards to consider the various competitive categories.  The 
relevant portion of the Directive provides: 

D.  POLICY 

1.  . . . . .  

a.  Centralized Selection.  To ensure fairness in the promotion 

selection process, and a balanced appraisal of the needs of the 
Military Service concerned, a single board shall be convened to 
consider all eligible officers in the same grade and competitive 
category for promotion to grades above captain in the Army, Air 
force, or Marine Corps; or lieutenant in the Navy, except that: 

/

-

 

2 

(1)  . . . 

(2)  .  . . 

b.  Concurrent Boards.  Selection boards convened for different 

competitive categories or grades may be convened concurrently 
when practicable at the discretion of the Secretary of the Military 
Department concerned. 

Applicant argues that the Air Force promotion board was illegal because the Air Force convened 
a single board consisting ofpanels rather than convening separate boards as required by the 
DOD Directive.  In our opinion, this argument is without merit.  It is clear that the directive’s 
purpose in requiring separate boards for each competitive category is to insure that these officers 
compete only against others in the same competitive category-to assure fairness and 
compliance with Title 10, Chapter 36 (particularly Section 621 requirements).  In truth, 
nomenclature notwithstanding, the Air Force’s competitive category “panels,” which are 
convened concurrently as permitted by the Directive, fully accomplish this stated purpose; Le., 
members of each competitive category compete within their respective “panel” only against other 
officers of that same category.  In fact, each of the nonline competitive panels are panels in name 
only; they-along with the line competitive category panels-are  actually separate promotion 
boards for purposes of the statutes and DOD Directive.  Consequently, they fulfill all the 
requisite statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Applicant next attacks as error the role of the board president in the Air Force promotion 
process, in particular, arguing that the board president’s duties in the Air Force process violates 
DOD Directive 1320.12, Section F, para 2(a)( 1).  We disagree.  The duties prescribed for board 
presidents by Air Force directives do require the president to perform several critical duties 
relative to board scoring.  Those duties do not, however, in any manner, constrain the board from 
recommending for promotion the best qualified among the fully qualified officers being 
considered.  Applicant has offered no proof that the president of this or any Air Force selection 
board has ever acted contrary to law or regulation.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the 
board president and other members of the board are entitled to the presumption that they carried 
out their duties and responsibilities properly and according to law.  Sanders v.  United States, 
594 F.2d 804,2 19 Ct.Cl. 285 (1 979). 

Finally, applicant claims that his nonselection cannot be remedied by special selection 

board (SSB) consideration.  See 10 U.S.C. 628.  He bases this on two reasons:  (1) the 
benchmark records that would be used in an SSB are invalid because the original promotion 
boards that rendered them were illegal;  and (2) scoring procedures used by Air Force SSBs are 
arbitrary and capricious.  We cannot address these issues without first reiterating our strong 
belief that applicant has not provided a meritorious application warranting the need for any 
relief.  As for the merits of these claims, in our opinion, the Air Force’s SSB procedure fully 
comports with the 10 U.S.C. 628(a)(2) requirement than an officer’s “record be compared with a 
sampling of the records of those officers of the same competitive category who were 

recommended for promotion, and those officers who were not recommended for promotion, by 
the board that should have considered him.”  The burden is on the applicant to prove otherwise, 
and he has failed to do so. 

As to the request for direct promotion, both Congress and DOD have made clear their 
intent that errors ultimately affecting promotion should be resolved through the use of special 
selection boards.  See 10 U.S.C. 628(b) and DOD Directive 1320.1 1, para D. 1.  Air Force policy 
mirrors that.  AFR 36-89, para 33a.  Moreover, we have repeatedly agreed with AF/JAG (see 
OpJAGAF 1994/17)  that the AFBCMR is not in the appropriate position to grant a direct 
promotion-that in promotion matters, the Board’s statutory authority should be limited to 
correcting military records which may have affected the promotion process, and recommending 
SSB consideration in appropriate cases.  The United States Court of Federal Claims concurs in 
this, Finkelstein v.  United States, 29 Fed.Cl. 61 1 (1993).  Otherwise, the BCMR-which is not 
compromised in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 612 and has no basis for comparing an applicant’s 
record with those of his competitors-would be essentially usurping the statutory power of 
promotion boards.  At a minimum, it is safe to say that the BCMR has not in the past (and likely 
will not in the future) considered direct promotion except in the most extraordinary 
circumstances where SSB consideration was deemed totally unworkable.  The applicant’s case 
clearly does not fall into that category. 

In summary, applicant has failed to present relevant evidence proving the existence of 

any error or injustice prejudicial to his substantial rights with respect to the promotion 
recommendation and promotion processes that considered him.  On that basis, we recommend 
that the application be denied. 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE  A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  A I R   F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

1996 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 10 

SUBJECT:  AFI 36-2603 Applicatio 
Response to applicant’s 

uested A&. 

See attached HQ AFPC/DPPPAB advisory, 17 Sep 95. 

r R e m .  See attached HQ AFPCDPPPAB advisory, 17 Sep 95. 

eco-. 

Deny. 

and Comments: 
a.  Application is timely.  This adwory is in response to the applicant s reouttal 

of our 17 Sep 95 advisory opinion (attached) of his 1 Feb 95 DD Form 149. 

b.  Since the original application was submitted, the applicant has been promoted 

to the grade of major above-the-promotion zone (APZ) by the CY95A (5 Jun 95) (PO495A) 
central selection board. 

c.  In his response to our 17 Sep 95 advisory, applicant submits a personal brief. 
The applicant contends he was, in fact, diligent in maintaining the accuracy of his records.  He 
also states he cannot be afforded fair treatment by an SSB, and should be directly promoted to 
major as if selected by the P0494A board.  We would point out the applicant provides no 
evidence to support any of the claims made in his rebuttal to the 17 Sep 95 advisory. A 
restatement of the applicant’s allegations does not constitute evidence.  The applicant’s 
contention that the SSB system is illegal is unfounded.  The process in place in the Air Force to 
reconsider members with errors in their records is the SSB system.  It is not within the 
applicant’s discretion to choose the manner in which he is considered for promotion. 
Furthermore, the applicant’s request for direct promotion does not correlate to his charge of an 
illegal promotion system.  If the entire Air Force promotion system were found to be in violation 
of regulations, the remedy would not be the automatic promotion of the applicant.  Only a 
reconstitution of the promotion boards, reconsidering all of the records, would be appropriate. 
We believe the applicant’s requests were appropriately addressed in our 17 Sep 95 advisory.  We 
do not believe the applicant has exercised reasonable diligence in the maintenance of his records, 
and we still contend that if the AFBCMR should decide the applicant is entitled to further 

! 

, 

a

.

 

promotion opportunity, an SSB composed of senior officers is the most advantageous position 
fiom which to render the decision regarding the applicant's promotion potential at the time of the 
P0494A board.  No new evidence is provided that affects our 17 Sep 95 advisory opinion.  We 
believe the applicant's allegations are unfounded. 

$-. 

Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

JOYCE E. HOGAN 
Chief, BCMR and SSB Section 
Dir of Personnel Program Mgt 

Attachment: 
HQ AFMPCDPPPAB Ltr, 17 Sep 95 

cc: 
SAFMBR 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE MILITARY PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFMPC/DPPPAB 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 10 

Requested Action.  Special Selec‘tion Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the 

grade of major by the CY94A (22 Aug 94) (P0494A) major board. 

Basis for Request.  Applicant requests that the citations for the Air Force Commendation 
Medal (first oak leaf cluster) (AFCM (1OLC)) and the Air Medal (AM) be added to his Officer 
- -   Record (OSR) as it met the P0494A board, and the AM and changes to his duty history 
. Selection 
be made to his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) that met the P0494A board. 

- 

Recommendation.  Denial. 

Facts and Comments: 

a.  Appeal is timely.  AFI 36-2401, Correcting OfEcer and Enlisted Evaluation 

Reports, 3 Jun 94, does not apply in this instance. 

b.  Applicant was selected for promotion by the CY95A (5 Jun 95) Major Board. 

c.  AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, 15 Aug 94, 

and AFI 36-2608, Military Personnel Records System, 3 1 May 94, are the governing directives. 

d.  Regarding the missing citation for the AFCM (loLC), applicant states that he 
faxed a copy of the special order to the Officer Promotions Section (HQ AFMPCDPPPOO) on 
15 Aug 94 for inclusion in his OSR and it was not filed in the OSR until 28 Sep 94.  We would 
like to point aut that the purpose of having a citation included in the record is not to allow board 
members the opportunity to peruse the comments thereon, although they may do so ifthey are so 
inclined.  Rather, the purpose is to make them aware of the sigmficance of the award.  In this 
regard, we’re guided by AFI 36-2608, Table A2.1, Item 329.  Specifically cited is that orders 
granting decorations may be filed and maintained when a like citation is not available.  This speaks 
to the “knowledge” that an award was given as opposed to the “contents” contained in the award 
citation.  Accordingly, evidence of an award within the OSR speaks to the award itself, not what 
the citation may or may not reveal.  The applicant is correct in stating that the citation for the 
AFCM (IOLC) was not on file.  However, the award was in evidence before the P0494A board. 

! 

I 

. 

The decoration was listed on the OSB assessed by the bomd members.  Therefore, the board 
members were knowledgeable the award was given which is the ultimate purpose of including 
them in the promotion selection process.  Since the board members were aware of the decoration, 
it was factored into their promotion evaluation. 

e.  Regarding the missing citation for the AM and it not being reflected on the 

OSB, applicant states that he faxed a copy of the special order to the Officer Promotions Section 
(HQ AFMPCDPPPOO) on 15 Aug 94 for inclusion in his OSR.  The citation covered the period 
1 Apr 94 through 17 May 94 and was awarded by special order 363 (Langley Air Force Base) 
dated 26 Jul94.  AFI 36-2803, Fig 3.1, Note 4, states, an award citation is required to be filed in 
the OSR within 60 days after the date of the awarding order or, in this case, 24 Sep 94.  The 
citation for the AM was filed in applicant’s OSR on 9 Sep 94.  Furthermore, AFI 36-2803, 
Paragraph 3.1, states recommendations should be entered into official channels within 2 years and 
awarded within 3 years of the act, achievement, or service performed.  Clearly the decoration in 
question was processed and placed in his records within the parameters outlined in the governing 
directive.  We would also like to point out that, after a review of applicant’s OSR, a copy of the 
Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) citation (attached) was found in the OSR with a file date of 
16 Aug 94 (annotated on the reverse of the AAM citation)--1 day after the applicant states he 
faxed a copy of the AM to HQ AFMPCDPPPOO.  We wonder ifthe AAM was erroneously 
faxed versus the AM. 

f  In reference to the assignment history not being reflected on the OSB, the board 

members were cognizant of the applicant’s correct duty titles, as shown on the attached Officer 
Performance Reports (OPRs).  It should be noted that every officer receives an Officer 
Preselection Brief (OPB) several months prior to a selection board.  The OPB contains data that 
will appear on the OSB at the central board.  Written instructions attached to the OPB and given 
to the officer before the central selection board specifically instruct M e r  to caremy examine 
the brief for completeness and accuracy.  If any errors are found, hdshe must take corrective 
action prior to the selection board, not after it.  The instructions specifically state, ccOffim  d l  
not be consihed by a Special Selection Board 
officer should have discovered the error or omission in hider records and could have taken 
timely corrective action” (emphasis added).  It appears the applicant ,did not take action to 
correct his assignment history entries until after the board.  The applicant states that he attempted 
ationed at Fort Stewart, Georgia, while 
several times to correct 
his servicing MPF was at 
He states that being physically separated 
fiom his servicing MPF created several problems, and the requested changes were never made. 
However, the applicant provides no evidence that he attempted to correct the contested data prior 
to the board.  Furthermore, we believe the applicant had ample time to correct his record prior to 
the board.  In fact, the applicant had at least two previous opportunities to review and COK&  his 
records as he received preselection briefs before his below-the-promotion zone considerations in 
1992 and 1993.  Yet, he has not provided any documentation to show his efforts to change his 
duty titles. 

in exercising reasonable diligence, the 

g.  We would like to point out that the applicant could have also included this 

information in a letter to the board president; i.e., “I wish to inform the board of the award of two 

I 

2 

- 

‘ .   . 

* 

decorations.  I have mailedfaxed the decorations to AFMPC; however, in the event they are not 
included in my record prior to it being scor ed,...  I would also like to point out corrections to my 
duty history for the periods. ..  I have been working with my servicing MPF to have these 
corrections made; however, in the event they are not included in my Officer Selection Brief prior 
to my record being scored, ...” 

h.  While the AFCM (IOLC) and AM were not included in the OSR, and the AM 
and changes to applicant’s duty history were not reflected on the OSB, it is highly unlikely they 
were the causes of his nonselection.  Central boards evaluate the, entire record (Promotion 
Recommendation Form, OPWOfficer Evaluation Reports, Training Reports, Letters of 
Evaluation, decorations, and OSB) to assess whole person factors such as job performance, 
professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic and professional 
military education. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, we recommend the AFBCMR deny 

applicant’s request.  However, ifthe AFBCMR desires to grant relief over our objections, they 
should direct the officer’s reconsideration by SSB in-the-promotion zone for the P0494A board 
with the OSB corrected to reflect the award of the AM and changes to the duty history, and the 
- _  citations 

for both the AFCM (1 OLC) and AM on file in the OSR. 

- 

- 

Chief; BCMR and SSB Section 
Dir of Personnel Program Mgt 

3 

- 

’* 

I 

I 

DEPARTMENT  O F  T H E  A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS  AIR  FORCE  P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

RANDOLPH  A I R   FORCE  B A S E  TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR  SAF/MIBR 
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPB 

550 C Street West Ste 5 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-4707 

SUBJECT: 

This response will address that portion of the applicant’s 9 Dec 95 letter titled Defective 

Selection Boards, Violation of Statute and DOD Directive. 

Applicant’s on@ 

application for correction of military records,  1 Feb 95, did indeed 

pertain to a correction of his records.  His latest correspondence, 9 Dec 95, offers no new 
supporting evidence but rather merely repeats his original claims and then proceeds to attack the 
promotion board system in general.  It is quite obvious that the applicant has received counsel 
since his accusations about the promotion board system are virtdly verbatim to other 
applications received of late.  In fact, attachment 3 to his latest correspondence contains copies of 
advisories written by this office on other applicants.  The applicant offers you his interpretations 
of the applicable statutes, directives, and other governing publications - they are without merit. 
Legal representatives for the Air Force have reviewed the promotion board procedures and have 
determined they are in compliance with governing directives. 

It should be noted that the promotion board procedures used for the CY94 Central Major 
Board that is being challenged by the applicant were the very same promotion board procedures 
used by the CY95 Central Major Board that selected the applicant for promotion.  The applicant 
apparently had no problem accepting the promotion and the results of the CY95 board. 

POC is Mi. Clayton, DSN 487-4901. 

STEVEN E. ROBINSON, Lt Col, USAF 
Chief of Ops, Selection Board Secretariat 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 
HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BASE,  TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPUDPPPEB 

550 C Street West, Ste 07 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4709 

SUBJECT:  Correction Board Case o 

a 

3-4 RR 

1996 

I 

One of the charges of the Officer Evaluation System (OES) Review Group commissioned by 

General Ronald Fogelman was to eliminate any negative perceptions of the OES and to ensure it 
was being implemented fairly and equitably across the Air Force.  In accordance with AFR 36- 
10, Page 1, the concern of special command indorsements or “stratification” was raised through 
normal command channels identifying it as an area that may require a potential change.  This 
group looked at the utilization of MAJCOM indorsements and noted they were not being used 
consistently throughout the Air Force.  However, these statements were never prohibited or 
encouraged by AFR 36-10.  The dilemma faced by the group was how to standardize this 
practice.  They elected to prohibit these comments at the management level since senior raters, 
not management levels, are solely responsible for making a promotion recommendation.  The 
Review Group determined that senior raters, however, could continue the practice of rank 
ordering their eligibles. 

’ 

The applicant states “...the MAJCOM special promote systems effectively ‘took away’ 

promotions from officers who received a legitimate promote recommendation”, and he continues 
by stating these procedure were illegal.  To the contrary, Para  4-13b states  management levels 
must review all I/APZ records of performance to identify and discuss with appropriate senior 
raters those PRFs that appear to contain comments that are exaggerated or unrealistic, do not 
support the overall recommendation and are not supported by members’ record of performance. 
Para 4-14 goes on to state “in all cases, a senior rater has the final authority to determine the 
content of the PWs he or she prepares...”.  This provision provided the latitude for management 
levels to rank order promotes since the senior rater served as a member of the MLEB. 

The applicant states the promotion quotas for officers with “legitimate” promote 

recommendations were cut dramatically in comparison to the officers who received “special 
promote” recommendations.  Although the package contains a Stratified Select Rate Chart for 
1993, we are unable to verify it’s source.  Additionally, the applicant is contesting the 1994 

Responsive to the Mission 

A -

 

- P 1   I f  1 

board results to Major and the chart reflects  1993 statistics to the grade of Lt Col.  Furthermore, 
this chart does not reflect significant statistical variances in promotion by MAJCOMs.  One 
should expect, however, that those records which are competed for additional “DPs” at the 
management level would be stronger than those who receive a “P” outright.  Unfortunately by 
law we are restricted as to how many officers we can have on active duty.  Some discrimination 
must take place to promote the best qualified officers and some senior raters chose to exercise 
this in the form of rank order comments in the PRF.  Since this was an authorized method of 
strengthening a PRF, there is no evidence of any impropriety in those cases where the PRFs were 
not rank ordered or strengthened with special recommendations. 

If there are any further questions regarding this assessnient, you can contact me at DSN 487- 

2753 or 2697. 

LAURA A. BRANZELL, Capt, USAF 
Chief, Evaluation Boards Section 
Directorate of Personnel Program Management 

Responsive  to the Mission 

-  ./I 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE MILITARY PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFMPCLDPMRIS 

550 C Street West, Suite 32 
Randolph AFB, TX 78 150-4734 

2 2  FE: 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records @D Form 149) 

Reauested Action.  The applicant is requesting three duty history corrections; 

add the citation for the Air Force Commendation Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster); and Air 
Medal to his selection folder.  We will be addressing his duty history only.  The 
remaining request will be forwarded to the appropriate office for action.  He requests 
special selection board consideration if any or all of the corrections are made. 

Reason for Reuuest.  Applicant believes the following was in error or missing 

when his records met the board. 

a.  9 Sep  93 duty entry duty title reflects F-d).  WSO, should be CHIEF 

OF STRIKE, F-m 

b.  19 Aug 92 duty entry duty title reflects AIR LIAISON OFFICER, 

should be BRIGADE AIR LIAISON OFFICER, FLIGHT CC. 

c.  14 Aug 91 duty entry duty title reflects AIR LIAISON OFFICER, 

should be BRIGADE AIR LIAISON OFFICER. 

Discussion. Based on OPRs in applicants Officer Selection Folder, we changed 

applicants duty titles to reflect the following: 

a.  9 Sep 93, duty title CHIEF OF STRIKE, WSO, F 
b.  19 Aug 92, g) BRIGADE AIR LIAISON OFFICER. 

C.  14Aug91 

BRIGADE AIR LIAISON OFFICER. 

Case Forwarded To.  Application has been forwarded to AFMPCDPMAJAl. 

r f  t r f  

Point of Contact.  MSgt Venard, DPMRIS1, ext 7-5041. 

Chief, Reports and Quiries Team 
Directorate of Assignments