AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

2 3  

st? 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET  NUMBER:  96-01381 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be  considered for promotion  to  the grade of  lieutenant colonel 
by  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB) for  the  CY95  (6 November  1995) 
Medical  Corps/Dental  Corps  (MD/DC) Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection 
Board, with  a  letter to  the board  president, and with  corrections 
to his officer selection record  (OSR). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He  was  not  afforded  an  opportunity  to  check  his  Promotion 
Recommendation Form  (PRF) for accuracy and completeness and was not 
informed of  the results of  the Promotion Recommendation Board.  He 
would  like to address the PRF via  a  letter to the Board president 
with information on the Residency in Aerospace Medicine. 

His Officer Selection Brief  (OSB) did not reflect his current duty 
location, duty  title  and  Air  Force  Specialty Code  (AFSC) despite 
properly  inprocessing  at  his  servicing  Military  Personnel  Flight 
(MPF) upon his initial arrival on 30 August 1995. 

His promotion package and OSB  academic information did not  reflect 
the  fact  that  he  had  been  selected  for  and  was  attending Harvard 
University, School of Public Health, to work on a Masters Degree in 
Public Health.  Had he been given the opportunity to view his PRF, 
he would have pointed out to his rater that he thought it important 
enough to include on the PRF, or he would have written a letter to 
the Management  Level  Evaluation Board  (MLEB) or  Central  Selecti-on 
Board President to inform them. 

His  promotion  package  does  not  reflect  that  the  Residency  in 
Aerospace  Medicine  now  leads  to  medical  board  eligibility  in  two 
separate  specialty  boards  -  Aerospace  Medicine  and  Occupational 
Medicine.  This is a fact he thinks important enough to be  included 
in  a  letter  to  the  Board  president,  had  he  known  it  was  not 
included in his PRF. 

His  Duty Air  Force  Specialty Code  (DAFSC) for the period  28  June 
1992 to 29 March 1993 should have been 9,3564 or 9356.  He attempted 
to have  this changed several times in the past  and thought it  was 
until  he  saw his  Officer Preselection Brief  (OPB) . 
He  identified 

this  as  incorrect on his  OPB  in August  1995, but  was  told  by  his 
MPF  that  it  was  too  late to  cnange  it  because  he  was  PCSing  in a 
few  days  and  that  the  MAJCOM  had  to  do  it.  It  was  eventually 
corrected on 13 February 1996. 

A  memorandum  requesting  a  missing  citation  for  award  of  the  Air 
Force  Commendation  Medal  was  never  forwarded  to  him  or  his 
servicing MPF. 

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  his  expanded 
comments, a  letter  to  the  CY95A  MC/DC  Promotion Board  President, 
and  documentation  associated  with  the  issues  in  this  appeal. 
(Exhibit A) 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS) reflects 
applicant's Total Federal Commissioned Service Date as 6 June 1981. 
He  was  appointed  in  the  Regular  Air  Force  on  5  April  1985  and 
entered  on  extended  active  on  that  same  date.  He  has  served  on 
continuous active duty since that time and  is currently serving in 
the grade of lieutenant colonel, with a date of rank and effective 
date of 1 June 1997. 

A resume of applicant's BERsIOPRS follows: 

PERIOD CLOSING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

25 Jun 82 
25 Jun 83 
25 Jun 84 
19 May 85 
30 Jun 86 
5 Sep 86 
5 Jun 87 
5 Jun 88 
5 Dec 88 
5 Jun 89 
30 May 90 
25 Oct 90 
16 May 91 
15 Apr 92 
15 Apr 93 
15 Apr 94 
15 Apr 95 
24 May 96 

* 

Education/Training Report 
Education/Training Report 
Education/Training Report 
Education/Training Report 
Education/Training Report 
Education/Training Report 
1-I-x 
1-i-X 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

*  Top report on file when considered and nonselected for promotion 
by the CY95 Medical Corps/Dental Corps  (MC/DC) Lt Colonel Selection 
Board which convened on 6 November 1995. 

2 

AFBCMR  96-01381 

Information  extracted  from  applicant's  Officer  Selection  Record 
reflects  the  citation  to  accompany  the  award  of  the  Air  Force 
Commendation  Medal  (AFCM), f o r   the  period  17  September  1986  to 
26 June 1991, was filed in the applicant's record on 22 July 1996. 

The  last  five duty  history entries  currently reflected in the  PDS 
are as follows: 

28 Jun 92 
13 Nov 92 
29 Mar 93 
29 Aug 95 
3 Jun 96 

9356 
9356 
4 8A4 
4 8A1 
4 8A1 

Deputy Chief, Flight Medicine 
Deputy Chief, Flight Medicine 
Chief Flight Medicine 
Stud Resident Aerospace Med 
Resident Aerospace Med 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Directorate  of  Assignments,  AFPC/DPAISI,  stated  applicant's 
duty history entries  for August  1995 and June 1992 were previously 
corrected  at  base  level,  prior  to  their  reviewing  his  appeal. 
Thus, no action is required by their office.  (Exhibit C) 

The  Evaluation  Programs  Section,  AFPC/DPPPEB,  provided  comments 
regarding  the  technical  aspects  with  respect  to  applicant's PRF. 
DPPPEB noted  that the applicant is not  specifically requesting any 
changes to the  PRF.  AFR  36-10, para  4-9, states the ratee should 
receive a copy of  the PRF approximately 30 days before the central 
board convenes.  However, failure of the senior rater to accomplish 
this task does not void  the report.  If  the applicant is approved 
for  SSB  consideration, DPPPEB  recommended  that  he  meet  the  board 
with the original PRF,  (Exhibit D) 

The  Chief, Medical Accessions and  Personnel Programs, AFPC/DPAMF2, 
reviewed  this  application  and  recommended  denial,  stating  the 
preponderance of information presented indicates that the applicant 
did  not  exercise  reasonable  diligence  in  ensuring  his  official 
records were accurate.  Their comments, in part, follow. 

Senior  raters  complete  PRFs  based  upon  a  review  of  the  ratee's 
record of  performance.  They have  no  requirement to  solicit  input 
from  subordinate  commanders  or  supervisors,  although  some  do. 
Since  PRF  evaluations  are  based  upon  officers'  documented 
historical performance,  the  applicant's senior rater was  under no 
requirement  to  make  mention  of  the  applicant's  selection  for  a 
residency training program.  If the applicant does not consider his 
PRF to be a fair and factual document, then he  should appeal under 
the provisions of AFR  36-2401..  However, he has stated that his PRF 
is an accurate document. 

Regardless  of  whether  the  applicant  received  a  copy  of  his  PRF 
prior to the promotion board convening date, he had the opportunity 
to  write  a  letter  to  the  promotion  board.  Information advising 
officers of  their  right  to write  letters to  the board  accompanies 

3 

AFBCMR  96-01381 

the Officer Preselection Brief.  Applicant's OPB  is dated 6 August 
1995  and  he  received  it  shortly after  this  date.  If  he  believed 
this  information  was  essential  f o r   his  selection  f o r   promotion, 
then he had nearly three months--from Aug  95 to Nov  95--to forward 
a letter to the Board. 

Applicant's  duty  title  as  Resident  in  Aerospace  Medicine  was 
effective  29  Aug  95.  Therefore,  his  O P B ,   dated  6  Aug  95, was 
correct  at  the  time  it  was  prepared. 
Duty  title  changes  are 
generally  entered  into  the  personnel  data  system  within  60  days, 
although many  take  longer.  The promotion board  convened on  6 Nov 
95, 67 days after the applicant's duty title change.  The applicant 
had  more  than  two  months  to  contact  HQ  AFPC  to  get  this  change 
reflected, or to write  a  letter to the board  before  the  convening 
date 

LI 

The academic information section of  O S B s   contains only information 
on education actually completed.  Selection for or participation in 
a  training program  is not  an authorized entry  in this information 
field.  Therefore, the  applicant's OSB  appropriately  omitted  this 
information. 

The  fact  that  his  OSR  did  not  reflect  that  completion  of  the 
Residency in Aerospace Medicine can lead to board  certification in 
two  separate  specialties  is  completely  irrelevant. 
First,  he 
hadn't completed his residency at the time.  Second, even if he had 
completed the  residency, he  would  need  to pass  national  specialty 
board examinations for board certification information to appear on 
his OSB/OSR. 
No  person  or  office  is  responsible  for  ensuring  that  promotion 
boards  are  aware  that  flight  surgeons  have  a  slightly  different 
career  path  than  other  physicians. 
Promotion  boards  for  all 
competitive  categories  score  records  of  officers  in  different 
specialties and with various career paths.  Selection board members 
make  informed  decisions  based  upon  officers'  records  of 
performance. 

The applicant had well over two years to get his duty title for the 
period  28  Jun  92  to  29  Mar  93  corrected  and  over  four  years  to 
ensure the citation for the AFCM awarded in 1991 was in his OSR. 

The complete DPMAF2 evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

The  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  recommended  denial  of 
applicant's request, stating that  while  it  may  be  argued  that  the 
contested  errors  were  factors  in  the  applicant's nonselection, 
there  is  no  clear  evidence  that  they  negatively  impacted  his 
promotion opportunity.  DPPPA's comments, in part, follow. 

DPPPA  concurred  with  DPAMF2's assessment  (Exhibit E)  addressing 
applicant's issues  regarding an  incorrect  assignment, duty  title, 
and DAFSC on the O S B .  

4 

AFBCMR  96-01381 

With resard to academic information, DPPPA concurred with DPAMF2 on 
this issue and added the  following information.  In support of  his 
appeal, applicant  provided  a  letter, dated  7 Mar  96  (Ex A, atch 
B-1) ,  from  the  Program Manager, Medical  Dental  Residency  Program. 
The author stated the degree of BA+ with a completion date of  1996 
should have been reflected on the OSB.  DPPPA contacted the author 
of  the  letter  who  did  some  more  research  on  the  applicant's 
education.  She indicated her initial letter was partially in error 
in  that  the  degree  should  reflect  "Medl' as  opposed  to  "BA+" and 
that  the  year  of  completion of  1996  is  accurate.  This  being  the 
DPPPA 
case,  the  findings  of  DPMAF2  are  right  on  target. 
recommended denial on this issue. 

Noting applicant's contention that his OSR did not reflect that the 
Residency  in  Aerospace  Medicine  now  leads  to  medical  board 
eligibility  in  two  separate  specialty  boards--Aerospace  Medicine 
and Occupational Medicine, DPPPA concurred with DPMAF2's assessment 
on this  issue.  Each  officer eligible  for promotion  consideration 
is  advised  of  the  entitlement  to  communicate  with  the  board 
president.  The  applicant  could  have  used  this  means  to  discuss 
with  the  board  president  his  participation  in  the  residency 
program.  However,  he  elected  not  to  exercise  this  entitlement. 
DPPPA recommended  denial  -  he  had  the opportunity and  didn't take 
i t .  

Regarding the incorrect DAFSC's for the period 28 Jun 92 to 29 Mar 
93, DPPPA 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.  In 
this  case,  since  the  applicant  was  considered  two  times  in  the 
below-the-promotion  zone  (BPZ)  category,  in  addition  to  his 
in-the-promotion  zone 
three 
opportunities  to  review  his  duty  history  for  possible  errors  or 
omissions.  The applicant provides no evidence to show he attempted 
to correct the contested data prior to his  IPZ board  let alone his 
two BPZ  boards.  The DAFSC applicant wants added  to the  contested 
DPPPA 
OSB  has  an  effective  date  that  is  four  years  old. 
recommended denial on this issue. 

consideration,  he 

( I P Z )  

had 

Regarding the missing award citation, DPPPA stated even though the 
award was not on file for the board, it was in evidence before the 
board.  The decoration was listed on the OSB assessed by  the board 
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  the  promotion  evaluation. 
DPPPA recommended denial on this issue. 

DPPPA  concurred  with  the  DPPPEB  assessment  addressing applicant's 
contention that he was  not  given an opportunity to review his  PRF 
prior to the board. 

The complete DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit F. 

5 

AFBCMR  96-01381 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant stated he relied on che personnel system to be experts at 
updating  his  records.  They had  over  two months  from  the  time  he 
PCSld  until  the  promotion  board  met. 
He  feels  he  acted  in  a 
reasonable  fashion  and  it  was  not  his  fault  his  records were  not 
updated 

~ 

Applicant  reiterated  his  contentions  cited  in  his  initial  appeal 
and  provided  comments  addressing  specific  issues contained in  the 
Air Force evaluations. 

Applicant's complete response, with computer products pertaining to 
his DAFSC, are at Exhibit H. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies provided  by  existing 
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.  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 compelling basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

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  15  July  1997, under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

6 

AFBCMR  96-01381 

Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Pane;  Cha1.r 
Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 

Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 
Exhibit G. 
Exhibit H. 

DD Form 149, dated 14 May 96, w/atchs; letter from 
Applicant, dated 1 Jul 96, w/atch. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFPC/DPAISI, dated 29 May 96. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 3 Jun  96. 
Letter, AFPC/DPAMF2, dated 22 J u l   96, w/atchs. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 15 Aug 96. 
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 3 Sep 96. 
Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Sep 96, w/atchs. 

WAYNE R. GRACIE 
Panel Chair 

7 

AFBCMR  96-01381