. 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  96-02444 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

1.  His duty qualification history brief be corrected as follows: 

a.  The duty title, effective 30 September 1989, be  changed 

to read:  "C-29A Project Officer" vice 'IC-20 Program Manager. 

b.  The effective duty date of  Ir2 November  1989" be  changed 

to read:  "16 December 1989." 
2 .   His Officer Selection Folder  (OSF) be updated to include the 
citation  for  the  Air  ForcenCommendation Medal,  First  Oak  Leaf 
Cluster (AFCM 1OLC). 

t

-

 

3.  He  be  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  rhajor  by 
Special Selection Board  ( S S B )  . 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

He assumed  the  duties of 
permanent  change of  stati 
Base  (AFB) in  September  1989.  His  duty  qualification  history  - 
brief  reflects that  he was the  C-20 Program Manager which is a 
much  higher  level  position  in  the  acquisitions  world. 
Approximately  three weeks  later, he  departed to Maxwell AFB  to 
attend Squadron Officer's School  ( S O S )   in residence.  Upon return 
to  Wright-Patterson, he  resumed  his  duties  as  a  C-29A  Project 
Officer.  The significance of  the duty history error reflecting 
'IC-20  Program Manager1! is that  it  reflects'he held  a very high 
level  position,  went  to  SOS  and  came  back  to  a  lower  level 
position. 
After  a  review  of  his  O S F   in  June  1996, he  found  that  the 
citation for the  award  of  the  second AFCM  had  not  been  placed 
into his  record.  There were  two letters in the OSF  requesting 
the  citation  be  made  available  for  the  4  March  1996  major 
promotion board.  Without this citation in his OSF, the promotion 
board never had an opportunity to read the accomplishments which 
led to the award. 

In support of  his  appeal, applicant  submitted a  letter from  a 
former supervisor which confirms the issue dealing with the level 
of duty positions. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  is  currently  serving on  extended  active  duty  in  the 
grade of captain. 

Applicant was considered and nonselected below-the-promotion zone 
(BPZ) by the Calendar Year  (CY) 1994A and CY95A major selection 
boards.  He was also considered and nonselected in-the-promotion 
zone (IPZ) by the CY96A  (4 March 1996) Central Major Board. 
Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile,  since 
promotion to the grade of captain, is as follows: 

f 

. 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

16 Aug 89 
15 Dec 89 
18 Jun 90 
18 Jun 91 
18 Jun 92 
18 Jun 93 
#  16 May 94 
##  16 May 95 
# # #   29 Feb 96 
28 Feb 97 

Meets Standards 
Education/Training Report 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

I 

# 

# #  

# # #  

Top report at time of nonselection  (BPZ) to the grade of 
major  (CY94A) 
Top report at time of nonselection  (BPZ) to the grade of 
major  (CY95A) 
Top report at time of nonselection  (IPZ) to the grade of 
maj or  ( CY9 6A) 

- 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

4 

The Chief, Assignments Information Systems Branch, Directorate of 
Assignments, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, states that based on OPRs contained 
in the  applicant's OSF, the  duty title and  effective date were 
changed to reflect the requested entries. 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

2 

, 

(PDS) ;  however,  they 

The Chief, BCMR and S S B   Section, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, states that with 
regard to  the  duty  title and  assignment history effective date 
changes, AFPC/DPAIS1 made these corrections to the personnel data 
system 
support 
(DPPPA)  do  not 
These 
reconsideration  for  promotion  on  these  issues. 
discrepancies were  also  listed  on  the  Officer  Selection Briefs 
(OSBs)  reviewed  by  all  three  major  promotion  boards. 
The 
applicant states he discovered these errors in July 1996.  Since 
these entries were on the O S B s   reviewed by all three boards, then 
it  is safe to assume that the same information was also on the 
officer preselection briefs  (OPBs) sent to the applicant prior to 
each board.  The  OPB  is  sent  to  each eligible officer several 
months  prior  to  a  selection board  and  contains data  that  will 
appear  on  the  OSB  at  the  central  promotion  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.  In this case, the applicant 
provides no evidence that he  attempted to correct the contested  - 
data prior to any of the boards. 

4 

- 

- 

I 

With  regard  to  the  AFCM  loLC,  in  reviewing  the  applicant's 
Officer  Selection  Record  (OSR), they  noted  the  AFCM  lOLC  was 
filed  on  7 May  1993--well  in  advance  of  the  CY94A  board. 
However, they noted the basic AFCM  citation was missing.  Since 
the  applicant  did  not  provide  a  copy  of  the  citation,  the 
applicant's servicing military personnel flight  (MPF) foxtwarded a 
copy of the citation.  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  states  that  orders 
granting  decorations  may  be  filed  and  maintained  when  a  like 
citation is not  available.  This speaks to the  I1knowledgeii that 
an award was given as opposed to the llcontentsll contained in the 
award citation.  Even though the citation for the basic AFCM was 
not  on file, the  award was  in evidence before  the CY94A, CY95A 
and CY96A promotion boards.  The decorations were listed on all 
three OSBs 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. 

While  it  may  be  argued  that  the duty history discrepancies and 
missing  basic  AFCM  citation  were  factors  in  the  applicant's 
nonselection,  there  is  no  clear  evidence  that  they  negatively 
impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the 
entire  OSR  assessing  whole  person  factors. 
They  are  not 
convinced  the  contested  errors  were  the  sole  cause  of  the 
applicant's nonselection.  The applicant could have communicated 
with  the  promotion  Board  President  to  inform  him  of  the 
discrepancies.  However, they have verified the applicant elected 

3 

not  to  exercise  this  entitlement  on  any  of  the  boards.  They 
recommend applicant's requests be denied. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE  EVALUATION: 
Applicant states, in summary, that the duty history errors may or 
may not have been a factor in his nonselection by the CY96A major 
selection board.  However, the change does correct the record and 
could  make  a  difference  to  how  his  career  progression  is 
interpreted. 

By  the  AFCM  citation  not  being  available  to  the  CY96A  major 
selection board, they were not aware of the accomplishments which 
enabled  him  to  achieve  this  medal. 
Although  the  board  had 
knowledge  of  the  award,  they  could  not  individualize  the 
achievements contained in the award citation. 

f 

~ 

In  response  to  the  timeliness  of  his  application,  these 
discoveries were made after a visit to AFPC during the summer of 
1996  to  get  a  debrief  on  his  OSB.  He  has  always  tried  to 
thoroughly review his  records throughout his  career and  had  no 
reason to believe  that  a  job title of  program  manager  for only 
one  month  would  be  misinterpreted  by  anyone  evaluatling  his 
records until after his nonselection for promotion. 
A copy of the applicant's response is attached at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

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 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we  are  not  persuaded  that  the  applicant  should  be 
provided  promotion  consideration by  a  Special  Selection  Board. 
The Air Force has indicated that the 30 September 1996 duty title 
entry and the duty effective date of  ' ' 2   Nov 8 9 "   have been changed 
based  on the  Officer  Performance Reports  ( O P R s )   in  applicant's 
record.  In addition, we  note  that  contrary to  the  applicant's 
assertions, the citation accompanying the AFCM lOLC was a part of 
his O S F   when it was reviewed by  the CY94A selection board.  The 
citation which was missing from the OSF  was the one  to accompany 
the  basic  AFCM; however, this  award  was  reflected  on  the  OSB. 

4 

The Air Force has indicated that this citation has been obtained 
and  is  a  part  of  his  OSF. 
Despite  these  discrepancies  in 
applicant's OSF, it  is our opinion that  the board  members  were 
aware of his awards, correct duty title, and duty effective date 
when they reviewed his record.  The Air Force also indicated that 
the central boards evaluate the entire officer record and it  is 
highly unlikely  that  these discrepancies were  the  cause of  his 
nonselection.  After reviewing the evidence of  record, we are in 
complete agreement with the comments of the Air Force.  In view 
of  the  above,  we  are  compelled  to  conclude  that  these 
discrepancies were harmless errors.  Therefore, we  find no basis 
upon which to recommend favorable .action on 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 26 August 1997, under the provisioqs of AFI 
36-2603. 

Mr. Robert D. Stuart, Panel Chairman 
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member 
Mr. Gary Appleton, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Aug 96, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Officer Selection Record. 
Exhibit B. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, dated 10 Sep 96. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 18 Sep 96. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Oct 96. 
Exhibit F.  Applicant's Letter, dated 12 Nov 96. 

ROBERT D. STUART 
Panel Chairman 

5 

. 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF T H E  A I R   FORCE 

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   AIR  FORCE  P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H   AIR  FORCE  B A S E  T E X A S  

10 Sep 96 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMJR 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPAISl 

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

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records (DD Form 149) 

- 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting duty history corrections and an addition 
of a decoration to his OSB.  We will address the duty history only.  The remaining request will be 
forwarded to the appropriate office for action.  He firther requests special selection board 
consideration if any or all of the corrections are made. 

Reason for Request.  Applicant believes that the duty title entry for 30 Sep 89, ‘w 

Program Manger”, should be ‘ 
effective date “2 Nov 89” should be changed to reflect “16 Dec 89”. 

Applicant also believes that the duty 

Discussion.  Based on OPRs contained in the officer’s selection folder, the duty title and 

effective date were changed to reflect the requested entries. 

Case Forwarded To.  Application has been forwarded to AFPC/DPPPAB. 

Point of Contact.  SSgt How, DPAIS1, ext 7-4453. 

JAMES R. WEIMER, Major, USAF 
Chief, Assignments Information Systems Branch 
Directorate of Assignments 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE MILITARY PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

18 SEP 96 

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-4710 

SUBJECT:  AFI 36-2603 A p p l

i c a t

i o n - q .

,

 

Requested Action.  The applicant m&es  three separate requests.  We address each 

individually.  In addition to these requests, he desires promotion reconsideration. 

Basis for Request.  Addressed individually. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is not timely filed.  The contested duty history entries have been a 

matter of record for over six years, and the decoration issue is over three years old.  The test to be 
applied is not merely whether the applicant discovered the errors within three years, but whether 
through due diligence, he could or should have discovered the errors (see OpJAGAF 1988156, 
28 Sep 88, and the cases cited therein).  Clearly, the alleged errors upon which he relies have been 
discoverable since the errors allegedly occurred.  Further, DoD Directive 1320.1 1 states, “A 
special selection board shall not.. .consider any officer who might, by maintaining reasonably 
carefbl records, have discovered and taken steps to correct that error or omission on which the 
original board based its decision against promotion.”  Therefore, we see no valid reason to waive 
the statute of limitations and consider the applicant’s requests. 

b.  A similar application was not submitted under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and 

Enlisted Evaluation Reports, as it would not have been appropriate. 

c.  The applicant was considered and nonselected below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) by 
the CY94A (22 Aug 94) (P0494A) and CY95A (5 Jun 95) (P0495A) major selection boards.  He 
was also considered and nonselected in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) by the CY96A (4 Mar 96) 
major board P0496A).  If the AFBCMR decides in favor of the applicant, then promotion 
reconsideration by all three boards would be appropriate--even though the applicant did not 
request reconsideration by a specific board. 

d.  The governing directive is AFM 30-130, Base Level Military Personnel System. 

I 

I 

4 

(OPBs) sent to the applicant prior to each board.  The OPB is sent to each eligible officer several 
months prior to a selection board.  The OPB contains data that will appear on the OPB 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 carehlly 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 iJ; in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the 
error or omission in hi&er  records and could have taken timely corrective action ’’ (emphasis 
added).  In this case, the applicant provides no evidence that he attempted to correct the 
contested data prior to any of the boards.  Why did the applicant wait until now to have the error 
corrected?  We believe the applicant had ample time to correct his record prior to not only the 
PZ board, but the BPZ boards as well.  We do not support reconsideration on the duty history 
corrections. 

j. While it may be argued that the duty history discrepancies and missing basic AFCM 
citation were factors in the applicant’s nonselection, there is no clear evidence that they negatively 
impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire OSR (including the 
promotion recommendation form, officer performance reports, officer effectiveness reports, 
training reports, letters of evaluation, decorations, and OSB), assessing whole person factors such 
as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and 
academic and professional military education.  We are not convinced the contested errors were 
the sole cause of the applicant’s nonselection. 

k.  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 inform the 
board president of  the discrepancies in his OSR. However, we have verified the applicant elected 
not to exercise this entitlement on any of the boards. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, we recommend denial. 

v~~~~~ E. HOGAN 

Chief, BCMR and SSB Section 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt