AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-01621 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  Yes 

QEC  I  I  1998 

APPLICANT REQUESTS: 

1.  Correction  of his Officer Selection Brief  (OSB) to reflect 
the  correct  duty  organization,  command  level,  and  academic 
education. 
2.  A new Promotion Recommendation Form  ( P R F )   be prepared with a 
Definitely Promote  (DP) recommendation. 

3.  Direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel with  a 
date of  rank  (DOR) as if he had been  selected for promotion by 
the Calendar Year  (CY95) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

Or, in the alternative, correction of his OSB to reflect the 
4. 
correct duty organization, command level, and academic education; 
his  PRF  be  changed  to  a  DP  recommendation;  and,  that  he  be 
granted a Special Selection Board  (SSB). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

His OSB for the CY95 board stated that his duty title was "Staff 
Judge Advocate" and  that  the organization was  a  "RES READINESS 
SQD"  while  the  unit he  served was  the  43gth  Airlift  Wing.  The 
OSB did not reflect his Army Reserve service from May  1979 to Aug 
1983 despite the fact that a decoration from that time period was 
included in the package presented to the board.  The OSB failed 

to  show  his  LL.M  degree  in  Environmental  Law  from e 

University which he received in 1993 despite thg fact 
s shown on the preliminary brief that he was given to 
review.  He also contends that he did not receive a copy of his 
PRF  30  days  prior  to  the  board,  as  required  by  AFR  35-10, 
paragraph  4-9. 
If  he  had  known  he  did  not  receive  a  DP 
recommendation,  he  could  have  exercised  his  right  to  send  a 
letter to the board. 

AFBCMR 97-01621 

copies 

of 

his 

In  support  of  his  appeal,  applicant  provided  a  six-page 
affidavit, 
Reports 
(OERs) /Officer Performance Reports  (OPRs) , a  copy of his prior 
AFBCMR appeal, and other documentation relating to his appeal. 
Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

Effective 

Officer 

STATEMENT -.OF FACTS : 
The  applicant  is  Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date 
(TAFMSD) is  8  Oct  83. 
He  is  currently  serving  on  extended 
active duty in the grade of major, effective, and with a date of 
rank  (DOR) of 1 May 90.. 

The Personnel Data System  (PDS)  reflects the applicant's OER/OPR 
profile since 1984 as follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

7 Apr 84 
7 Oct 84 
7 Apr 85 
9 Dec 85 
9 Jun 86 
5 Jun 87 
17 Feb 88 
17 Feb 89 
17 Feb 90 
16 Feb 91 
14 Jun 92 
14 Jun 93 
14 May 94 
14 May 95 
14 May 96 
10 May 97 

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

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

- _  

AFBCMR Memorandum  95-02564, dated 22 Nov  96, directed the 5 Jul 
94 entry under the Assignment History Section of the applicant's 
CY94A  OSB  be  corrected  to  read  "W/Bff under  the  ?CMD  LVL"  and 
''43gth Airlift Wing" under "Organization" and the entry  IfSQff  that 
follows  the  organizational title  should  read  "Wing."  The  Air 
Force indicated that this correction was made  in the PDS by  the 
office  responsible  for  updating  duty  history;  however,  the 
correction was  directed  a f t e r   the  CY95B  board  so  the  original 
information was still included on the CY95B OSB for the 5 Jul  94 
assignment history entry.  The Air  Force  further indicates that 
to  compound the  situation, the  applicant had  additional updates 
to  his  assignment  history  prior  to  the  CY95B  board. 
These 
(22 Oct  94  and  31  Jan  95)  also  reflect  'TMD LVL"  as 
entries 
"AFR, If  "Organization" as  "Reserve Readiness Mobility  Sq"  (22 Oct 
94 entry and "Reserve Spt Sq"  (31 Jan 95) entry. 

' 

2 

. 

AFBCMR 97-0 1 62 1 

The AFBCMR  granted  the applicant a  SSB by  the CY94A  lieutenant 
colonel  board  based  on  the  information contained  on  the  CY94A 
OSB.  The  SSB  convened on 2 Jun  97;  however, the applicant was 
nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel. 

Applicant has  four promotion nonselections by  the CY94A  (11 Oct 
9 4 ) ,   CY95B  (27 Nov 9 5 ) ,   the CY97B  ( 2   Jun 97)  and the CY97E  (8 Dec 
9 7 )   lieutenant colonel boards. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Chief,  Appeals  &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this 
application  and  indicated that Air  Force Manual  (AFM) 36-2622, 
Volume I, 1 Feb 96,  paragraph 6.20.3.3.8.2., 
states, in part, \\In 
system  changes  can  be  made  if  the  various  source  documents 
reflect  an  error  was  made.“  The  applicant  is  contesting  the 
validity of his  unit  of  assignment, and he  believes  the OSB  is 
incorrect; however, there are no source documents to support his 
position. 
Assignment  information  is  based  on  unit  manning 
document  authorizations  and  accurately  reflects  the  unit  of 
assignment.  While the applicant and the AFBCMR finds this to be 
misleading, it is nonetheless correct.  If the applicant believed 
the assignment history to be misleading, he was entitled to write 
a letter to the board president as instructions attached to the 
Officer  Preselection  Brief  (OPB)  reflect. 
DPPPA’ s  records 
indicate he did not avail himself of this entitlement.  Further, 
the  14 May  95  OPR that met  the  CY95B  board  clearly shows “951St 
Reserve  Support  Squadron  (AFRES) w i t h   d u t y   a t   the  43gtn  A i r l i f t  
If  the  Board  directs  additional  corrections  to  the 
Wing.“ 
applicant‘s  assignment history  for the  22 Oct  94 and  31 Jan  95 
entries, subsequent entries  (which are made  at base  level) will 
undoubtedly  still  reflect  information  from  the  unit  manning 
document and this could result in follow-on appeals on the part 
of the applicant. 

Regarding the PRF issue, while the applicant believes he did not 
receive  his  PRF within  the  time  limits outlined  by  regulation, 
DPPPA must  point out that AFR  36-10, paragraph 4-9a(6), states, 
“The  senior  rater  provides  the  ratee  a  copy  of  the  PRF 
approximately  (emphasis  added)  30  days  before  the  central 
selection board.”  What the applicant does not say  is what he did 
to expedite receipt of his PRF.  While they realize the applicant 
did  not  entirely  control  the  situation,  he  could  have  made 
inquiries  to  let  the  senior  rater  know  he  was  interested  in 
receiving the PRF as soon as possible, or he could possibly have 
postponed his  leave.  The senior rater was not required to hand 
deliver  the  PRF  to the ratee, nor was  he  required  to  check  the 
ratee‘s leave schedule.  Furthermore, while the applicant appears. 
to be  focusing on when he received his PRF, he does not provide 
any evidence that the PRF is inaccurate as written. 

3 

c 

0 

AFBCMR 97-0 1 62 1 

. 

While the applicant contends his LL.M  degree was missing from his 
OSB even though it was  listed correctly on the OPB, DPPPA  found 
that the applicant was only partially correct in his contention. 
The  OPB  did  not  reflect  the  accurate  information. 
Had  the 
applicant been diligent in his perusal of the OPB,  he could have 
discovered this error and taken action to have it corrected prior 
to  the  board. 
Further,  this  issue  did  not  surface  in  the 
applicant's  appeal  of  his  nonselection by  the  CY94A board, nor 
did he surface the issue prior to SSB consideration for the CY94A 
board.  Dp.FPA  contends that the applicant had ample opportunity 
to  ensure  the  academic  education  was  corrected  prior  to  his 
promotion considerations.  Department of Defense  (DOD) Directive 
1320.11, paragraph D.3.r  states, "A Special Selection Board shall 
not, under Section 628(b) or 14502(b) of reference (b) [Title 10, 
United  States  Code],  consider  any  officer  who  might,  by 
maintaining reasonably careful records, have discovered and taken 
steps  to  correct  that  error  or  omission  on  which  the  original 
board based its decision against promotion." 
The applicant's  Army Reserve service from May 79 -  Aug  93 is not 
included in his  duty history because  it is not part  of  his Air 
Force  duty  history  (AFM  30-130,  Chapter  18-18e). 
This 
information  has  never  been  included  on  any  of  the  applicant's 
OSBs,  nor should it have been.  Again, this is another issue the 
applicant could have addressed in a letter to the board president 
had he exercised this option. 

Regarding  the  applicant's  request  for  direct  promotion  to  the 
grade  of  lieutenant  colonel,  an  officer  may  be  qualified  for 
promotion, but, in the judgment of a  selection board-vested with 
discretionary authority to make the selections-he may not be the 
best  qualified  of  those  available  for  the  limited  number  of 
promotion  vacancies.  Absent  clear-cut  evidence  the  applicant 
would have been a  selectee by  the CY95B board,  DPPPA  believes a 
duly constituted board, applying the complete promotion criteria, 
is  in  the  most  advantageous  position  to  render  this  vital 
determination.  The board's  prerogative  to do  so should not  be 
usurped  except  under  extraordinary  circumstances.  Further,  to 
grant  a  direct promotion would  be  unfair  to  all other  officers 
who  have  extremely  competitive  records  and  also  did  not  get 
promoted.  DPPPA does not support direct promotion. 

In  summary,  while  it  may  be  argued  that,  since  the  AFBCMR- 
directed correction to the 5 Jul 94 assignment history entry was 
not  accomplished until  after  the CY95B board,  then SSB by  that 
board  is  warranted,  and  DPPPA  does  not  espouse  that  argument. 
The applicant received SSB consideration by  the CY94A board with 
the corrected assignment history  (his in-the-promotion zone  ( I P Z )  
consideration) and was nonselected.  It would not follow that the 
same correction would enhance his record sufficiently to warrant 
promotion by the CY95B board  (above-the-promotion zone  ( A P Z ) ) .  
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 

II 

4 

. 

AFBCMR 97-0 162 1 

The  Chief,  Reports  &  Queries  Team,  AFPC/DPAISl,  also  reviewed 
this  application  and  indicated  that  assignment  information  is 
based  on  unit  manning  document  authorizations  and  accurately 
reflect the unit  of assign 
the OPR  states that  the 
applicant  had  duty  at  the 
t  Wing,  the  fact  remains 
eserve  Readiness  Mobility 
that  he  was  assigned  to  the 
Squadron, which  later became the 
Reserve Support Squadron. 
In addition, Block 9 (PAS 
OPR  assigns the applicant 
the MAJCOM  (major command) identity defined as OM for AF Reserve. 
Thus, his duty command levels reads OM.  DPAISl recommends denial 
of applicant's  request to change his duty history. 

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF A I R   FORCE EVALUATION: 
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and provided a five- 
page rebuttal. 

Applicant's  complete response, with  attachments, 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. 
Applicant's  contentions are duly noted.  However, we do not find 
these assertions, in and by  themselves, sufficiently persuasive 
to  override  the  rationale provided  by  the Air  Force.  We  note 
that the applicant received SSB consideration by the CY94A board 
with  the  corrected assignment  history  and  was  not  selected  for 
promotion.  We  are not persuaded  that the same correction would 
enhance his record sufficiently to warrant promotion by the CY95B 
board.  Therefore, in the absence of clear-cut evidence that the 
omission of this information was the basis for his nonselection, 
we are in agreement with the comments of the Air Force and adopt 
the  rationale expressed  as  the basis  for our decision that  the 
applicant has  failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered 
either  an  error  or  an  injustice. 
Therefore,  we  find  no 
compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief  sought.  In 
addition, we  have  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend  that  he  be 
directly promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel. 

5 

. 

AFBCMR 97-0 162 1 

4.  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 
for 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 
evidence  not 
upon  the 
considered with this application. 

submission  of  newly  discovered  relevant 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session on 30 September 1998, under the provisions of 
Air Force Instruction 36-2603: 

Mr.  John C.  Robuck, Panel Chair 
Mr. Kenneth L. Reinertson, Member 
Mr. Mike Novel, Member 
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 

DD Form 149, dated 22 May 97, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 25 Aug 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPAISl, dated 12 Ser, 9 7 -  
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 2 2   Sep 97. 
Letter fr applicant, dated 16 Oct 97, 

I - . -  

w/atchs. 

- -  

U J O H N  L. ROBUCK 

Panel Chair 

6