t 

I 

AIR  FORCE BOARD FOR  CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD 3F PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

COCKET NUMBER:  97-02134 
CGUNSEL : 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

1.  His  Officer  Selection  B r i e f s  
( O S B s )  ,  prepared  for  the 
Calendar Years 1995B  (CY95B) and  1996B  (CY96B) Colonel Selection 
Boards, be  corrected  to  reflect  the  Meritorious  Service  Medal, 
First Oak Leaf Cluster  (MSM, iOLC) f o r   the period 30 October 1993 
to 31 July 1995, and  that  the  citation be placed  in his Officer 
Selection Records  (OSRs). 

2.  The Army Commendation Medal  (ARCOM) ,  Basic, citation for the 
period 31 July 1983 to 3 September 1983, be placed In his OSRs. 

3 .   Two  letters  of  evaluation  (LOEs)  (Supplemental Evaluation 
Sheets,  AF  Forms  7 7 ) ,  for  the  periods  7  March  1984  through 
26 June 1984 and 3G  November  1990 through 15 May  1991 be  placed 
in his OSRs, or all LOEs should be removed. 

4 .   The CY96B OSB  be corrected to reflect: 

a.  Aeronautical/Flying Data as  “Master Navigator, ”  effective 

24 July 1996. 

b.  Assignment  History,  30  August  1995  entry:  Command  Level 
as DD/J, Major  Command  as  EUR,  and  Organization as AFELM  SIXTH 
FLEET. 

5.  His corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade 
of colonel by  Special Selection Boards  (SSBs) f o r   the  CY95E and 
CY96B Colonel Selection Boards. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT : 
In September 1996, he asked AFPC/DPAJJ to investigate the matter 
of Joint Duty Assignment.  They reported that apparently, and f o r  
reasons yet  to be  determined, the  16AF billet was never deleted 
and  that he  was  in that  billet.  There are two USAF  billets on 
the Sixth Fleet  staff  -  one  16AF and one  joint.  As of  28 March 
1997, AFPC  is still  investigating this dichotomy and he  remains 
in the 16AF billet.  He carefully reviewed the preselection brief 

r 

I 

97-02134 

provided  by  his  servicing  Military  Personnel  Flight  (MPF) and 
three  times  asked  that  numerous  errors  be  corrected.  The  MPF 
corrected  all  errors  with  the  sincplar  exception  of  the  joint 
duty  assignment  problem. 
He  believes  that  he  exercised 
reasonable  diligence  and  took  timely  corrective  actions  to 
rectify that error.  He discovered the decoration and AF  Form 77 
omissions only after viewing his  CSR on 27 March 1997.  The fact 
that  the  citations  and  one  AF  Form  77  are  in  his  personnel 
records  at  the  Air  Force  Personnel  Center  (AFPC) but  were  not 
included in his OSR  .is troubling. 

In  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  a  staff  summary 
sheet,  HQ  USAF/XOOT  memorandum,  Aeronautical  Order,  award 
documentation,  LOEs,  Promotion  Recommendation  Form,  and  an 
assignment management system single uniform retrieval format. 

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the 
grade of lieutenant colonel. 

Applicant  was  considered  and  nonselected  for  promotion  to  the 
grade  of  colonel  by  the  CY953  Colonel  Selection  Board,  as  a 
below-the-zone candidate.  He  was  considered  for promotion  and 
nonselected by the CY96B and CY97B Colonel Selection Boards. 

Applicant was awarded the Army Commendation Medal  (ARCOM), Basic, 
for  the  period  31  July  1983  to  3  September  1983  by  Permanent 
Orders 5426, dated 3 April  1984.  The ARCOM, Basic, citation was 
in applicant’s OSR  at  the  time of  the CY95B or CY96B Boards and 
was indicated on the OSBs. 

Applicant  was  awarded  the  MSM,  lOLC  for  the  period  30  October 
1993  through  31  July  1995  by  Special  Order  GA-40  dated 
11 September  1995. 
The  MSM,  loLC,  citation  was  not  in  the 
applicant’s OSR  and was not  indicated on the OSB at  the  time of 
the CY95B Board. 

The MSM, loLC, was reflected on the applicant’s OSB f o r   the CY96B 
Board but  the  citation was  not  filed  in his  OSR.  However, the 
MSM, loLC, certificate was in his OSR. 

His OSR was updated on 31 October 1997 with the citation f o r   the 
MSM, 1OLC. 

The LOE closing 26 June 1984 was not  filed in applicant’s OSR  as 
required by regulation. 

2 

I 

97- 02134 

Applicant s Assignment  History, Command Level 
has  been  updated 
to reflect  “AF,” effective  3 C  August  1995.  However, it  was  not 
correct on the CY95B or CY96B 3 S B s .  
Applicant‘s  duty  title  “Fleet  Air  Force  Officer, 
30 August 1995 was not  listed on his CY95B OSB. 

effective 

I’ 

I 

OER/OPR profile since 1981, follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

Supplemental Evaluation 

Sheet 

Supplemental Evaluation 

Sheet 

Supplemental Evaluation 

Sheet 

* 

10 Jun 81 
06 Mar 82 
06 Mar 83 
31 May 83 
06 Mar 84 
06 Mar 85 
14 Aug 85 
30 Nov 85 
14 Aug 86 
14 Aug  87 
14 Aug 88 
14 Dec 88 
30 Jun 89 
30 Jun 90 
30 Jun 91 
30 Jun 92 
31 May 93 
3 1  May 94 
31 May 95 
31 May 96 
31 May 97 
*  Reports in question. 
#  Top report at time of CY95B board. 
# #   Top report at time of CY96B board. 
# # #   Top report at time of CY97B board. 

# 
# #  
# # #  

1-1-1 
1-1-1 

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

1-1-1 
1-1-1 

Education/Training Report 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

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

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Officer  Promotion  Management,  Directorate  of  Personnel 
Program  Mgt  AFPC/DPPPO,  reviewed  the  application  and  states 
that, in regards to the CY95B board, the most recent duty history 
entry  f o r   that  board  was  “1  Sep  1994; C12F4U;  Commander,  W/B; 
ACC; Air Supt Opns; Sq; 
”  A review of duty history 
changes  indicates that  although  the  effective date  of  the  duty 
title  “Fleet  Air  Force  Officer’’ was  30  August  1995  in  that 
assignment,  the  update  was  not  made  until  December  1995. 
Therefore,  it  was  not  feasible  f o r   the  board  to  have  reviewed 
that  information via  the OSB.  The MSM, loLC, was neither cited 
on  the  OSB  nor  was  the  citation  present  in  the  OSR. 
The 
aeronautical rating  listing on the OSB  is  “Sr Nav.“  They  have 

3 

1 

I 

97-02134 

not  received  correspondence  from  any  flight  records  agency 
requesting a change to this information prior to the convening of 
The  applicant  does  not  reveal  if  attempts  to 
the  board. 
accomplish the corrections were made prior to the board nor that 
he realized the information was available to the board. 

‘I. 

AFPC/DPPPO  also  states  that  in  regards  to  the  CY96B  Board,  a 
review  of  the  duty  history  clnanges  indicates  that  no  changes 
occurred affecting the command level  (W/B) ,  major command  (AFE), 
or organization  (Air Force) prior  to the convening of  the CY96B 
board or to date.  The  MSM, loLC, certificate was posted  to the 
OSR on 4 November 1996 prior to the convening of  the CY96B board; 
however,  the  OSB  did  not  refl-ect this  award.  Inclusion  of  a 
citation vice  a  certificate  is  a  possible  correction;  however, 
the applicant does not  reveal if  attempts were made prior  to the 
board nor that he  realized this information was presented to the 
board  in  this  manner.  The  aeronautical  rating  listing  on  the 
CY96B  OSB  is  “Sr  Nav.”  They  have  not  received  correspondence 
from  any  flight  records  agency  requesting  a  change  to  this 
information prior  to the  convening of  the board.  Applicant was 
reminded  by  his  senior  rater  prior  to  the  CY95B  board  that, 
.your right to submit a letter to the President of  the Central 
Selection  Board  calling  attention  to  any  matter  of  record  you 
believe to be  important to your consideration.”  This opportunity 
was  provided  to  the  applicant  for  both  considerations  for 
promotion  to  colonel 
the  three  promotion  considerations  to 
lieutenant  colonel  and  the  three  considerations to  major.  The 
opportunity  is  clearly  outlined  in  AFI  362501,  paragraphs  1.7 
(responsibilities for the eligible officer), and 2.10 (conducting 
the board).  The process for making corrections to an OSB or OSR 
were  in  place  for  the  CY95B  and  CY96B  colonel  boards. 
Instructions  and  milestones  for  actions  pertaining  to  central 
selection  boards  were  clearly  outlined  in  Military  Personnel 
Flight Memorandums  ( M P F M s ) .   The MPFMs  were made available to the 
officer prior to the convening of each board.  This advisory does 
not  contest that errors were valid  or not.  However, SSB should 
not  be  granted primarily because  the applicant does not  provide 
evidence that due to circumstances beyond his control or through 
no  fault  of  his  own, the  system  failed  in his  attempt  to  make 
corrections to his record prior to the board.  Further SSB should 
not  be  granted  because  the  applicant  does  not  indicate  his 
with the board president as 
intentions to elect not to correspond 
was his right. 

I 

A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force 
Exhibit C. 

evaluation  is  attached  at 

The Chief, Joint Officer Management, 
AFPC/DPAJ,  reviewed  the  application 

Directorate of Assignments, 
and  states  the  applicant 

4 

1 

I 

97-02134 

requests  correction  to  his  duty  history  on  his  CY96B  OSB. 
A plicant was serving in a valid  i G t ”   Air Force position with the 
6”  Fleet.  Applicant  was  not  receiving  joint  credit  for  this 
position thus his duty history was correct in reflecting W/B and 
not  DD/J.  After  researching  the  applicant’s assignment  folder, 
all documentation shows that  Ehe  applicant was  serving in  a two 
year non-joint position, not a three year joint position.  Also, 
a  joint  assessment nomination package  was  not  completed  at  the 
time  of  the  assignment  action  which  is  required  for  joint 
assignments.  They agree that t h i s   request should be denied 

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

The Chief ,  Reports and Queries Team, Directorate of  Assignments, 
AFPC/DPAISl, reviewed the application and states that a research 
shows member’s duty  information f o r   his  then current  assignment 
did  not  appear  on  his  CY95B  OSB.  This  particular  entry  was 
originally entered in December 1995 with  a duty title of  “Fleet 
Air Force Officer” effective 30 August 1995.  This duty title was 
then  replaced  in March  1996  ta  reflect  “Joint Air  Operations  & 
Plans.”  They  do  believe  that  member  had  ample  opportunity  to 
aggressively pursue this omission from his duty history; however, 
they  do  concede  that  other  factors  such  as  system  flow, being 
geographically separated from his  servicing MPF, etc. might  have 
played a part in lack of timely update. 

AFPC/DPAISl also states that  member  contends his  30 August  1995 
duty  command  level, MAJCOM,  and  organization were  incorrect  as 
they appear on the  CY96B OSB.  Member contends his duty command 
level  as  reflected  Wing/Base  (W/B) should  have  reflected AFELM 
Joint  (DD/J).  Member  was  assigned  to  the  16th Air  Force  and 
occupied a 16th Air Force position with the US Six Fleet.  He was 
not serving in a joint position; therefore, he is not awarded the 
duty command of DD/J.  They do not  concur with the duty level of 
Wing/Base  either.  Member  should have  had  a  duty  command  level 
reflected Numbered Air Force  (AF) .  Although the duty command of 
AF  has been updated  in the  last year, it was not  correct on the 
CY96B  OSB.  Applicant  contends  his  MAJCOM  as  reflected  US  Air 
Forces, Europe  (AFE) should reflect HQ US European Command  ( E U C ) .  
Members were  assigned  to PAS Code AYODFHYH  which  falls under US 
Air  Forces, Europe  (AFE).  This  information was  correct  on  the 
CY96B OSB.  Applicant contends his organization as reflects \\16th 
Air  Force”  should  reflect  “United  States  Six  Fleet. 
Again, 
member was assigned to the  “ X t h  Air Force, as determined by  his 
PAS Code and was given a  16th Air  Force position.  Furthermore, 
Table  046  which  lists  organization  kinds  and  their  clear  text 
does  not  provide  for  a  value  that  defines  “United  States  Six 
Fleet.”  They do not believe the change of the duty command level 

I’ 

5 

r 

97-02134 

for the  CY96B  OSB  is  significant  enough, in  itself, to  warrant 
special consideration; however, they do believe that the omission 
of  member’s current duty  from the  CY95B  OSB  may  warrant  another 
look by the special selection board. 

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

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation and Recognition Div, Director of 
Personnel Program Management, AFPC/DPPP, reviewed the application 
and  states  that  at  the  time  the  LOE  closing  26  June  1 9 8 4   was 
rendered, AF  policy required LOEs  for periods  of  temporary duty 
(TDY) for over  60 days be  attached  to  the  OPR  and  subsequently 
filed in the applicant’s records.  The LOE was not  filed in the 
applicant‘s OSR, as required by  regulation.  They note, however, 
the information contained in the LOE is reflected on the OER that 
closed  out  on  6 March  1 9 8 5 .  
Further, why  was  its  absence  not 
discoverable  when  the  OER  became  a  matter  of  record  in  1983? 
They find it hard to believe the applicant never reviewed his OSR 
prior to March 1997.  They are opposed to the applicant receiving 
SSB  with the inclusion of the LOE since the information contained 
therein was previously considered by  the promotion board.  They 
feel  the  absence  of  this  LOE  in  his  OSR  to  be  insignificant 
especially  since he  was  competitively selected to  the grades  of 
major and lieutenant colonel without its inclusion in his record. 
In March  1 9 8 8 ,   the Air Force policy changed, and all LOEs became 
optional,  therefore,  not  required  to  be  attached  to  OPRs  and 
filed  in  the  applicant’s  personnel  records. 
LOEs  are  not 
suspensed  either by  the MPR  or orderly  room and  used  solely by 
the rater when rendering an evaluation report.  The o n l y   AF Forms 
77  to  be  filed  in  the  applicant’s personnel  records  are  for 
students.  In this instance, the rater of the applicant‘s 30 June 
1991 OPR used the information cited on the contested LOE rendered 
15 May  1 9 9 1 ,   to prepare the applicant’s OPR  in direct accordance 
with AF policy in effect at the time. 

AFPC/DPPP  also  states that  even  though  the  MSM,  loLC, citation 
was  not  on file  for the  CY96B board,  it  was  in evidence  before 
the board.  The certificate for this decoration, awarded by  the 
Commander, gth  Air Force, was on file in the O S R .  
They replaced 
the certificate with  a copy of  the citation on 31 October 1997. 
The ARCOM citation was filed in the OSR  on 8 May 1 9 8 4 .   The board 
members were knowledgeable both decorations were given, which  is 
the ultimate purpose of  including them in the promotion selection 
process.  Since the board members were aware of the decorations, 
they factored them into the promotion evaluation.  The applicant 
has failed to provide anything to prove he received anything less 
than  fair  and  impartial  consideration.  Based  on  the  evidence 
provided, their recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

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

6 

1 

I 

97-02134 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF  AIR  FORCE  EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the Air F o r -c e   evaluations and provides his 
comments  to  the  evaluations.  He  also  states, in part,  that  he 
requested a records review Report 33  Individual Person  ( R I P )   from 
his  orderly  room  in  September,  October,  and  November  1995  in 
order to ensure the information was before the board.  He did not 
receive the RIP  (dated 8 December 1995) until 25 December 1995 at 
which  time  he  was  deployed  in  support  of  the  Bosnia  operation. 
He  was  not  aware  until  t h a t   time  that  the  dut-y  history 
information was  incorrect.  He  was  not  aware  that  the  correct 
duty history was not presented to the board.  It is reasonable to 
assume that a functioning personnel system should have  input the 
correct  data  in  the  three  months  prior  to  the  board.  He  was 
physically awarded the M S M ,   1GLC in November 1995.  The elements 
had been  forwarded on  11 September 1995 to the servicing MPF  of 
the unit to which he had been assigned until July 1995, and then 
to  his  actual  servicing  MPF.  He  did  not  make  the  effort  to 
insure the decoration had been entered into his personnel records 
by his servicing MPF  as he was  not aware that they had  not done 
so  when  they  forwarded  the  elements  in  October  1995.  It  is 
reasonable to assume  that  a  functioning personnel system should 
have  input  the  data  in  the  t w o   months  prior  to  the  board.  In 
regard to the duty history  for the CY96B board, the  fundamental 
problem  is that  there are  two USA?  Lt  Col  billets on the books 
for  duty  with  the  6L1'  Fleet  at  Gaeta,  Italy.  One  is  a  USAF 
position, to which  AFPC  assigned  him, and  the  other  is  a  Joint 
Duty billet to whit JDPN V034-Ci001.  When he volunteered for that 
assignment, he was told by his MPF  joint assignments section that 
it  was  a  three  year  joint  duty  assignment.  He  was  extremely 
surprised  to  see  the  tour  length  that  appeared  on  his  13  July 
1995 orders was 24 months.  He  was not  aware of  the discrepancy 
until  after  the  CY95B  board  anG  he  made  numerous  attempts  to 
correct the error with no luck.  The  Secretary of  the Air  Force 
awarded  him  the  Master  Navigator  rating  on  24  July  1996  by 
waiving  his  3rd  flying  gate. 
Persons  unknown  misplaced  his 
waiver from 24 July 1996 to 16 May 1997.  He repeatedly attempted 
to ascertain the status of the waiver.  The duty title is not  at 
issue;  rather  the  duty  command  level, MAJCOM,  and  organization 
should reflect the fact that he  should have been in a joint duty 
billet.  The ARCOM  citation  filed  in  his  OSR  on  8 May  1984  is 
award of the ARCOM, first oak leaf cluster.  The citation for the 
basic  award  of  the ARCOM, presented  f o r   meritorious  achievement 
was 3 1   July 1983 to 3 September 1983 in Africa is missing.  While 
perhaps none of  the minor  irregularities would have  influenced a 
promotion  board, all  taken  together may  have.  He  again points 
out that most  of the errors were beyond his control and that, in 
most  instances, he  took  prudent  action to correct them prior  to 

7 

97-02134 

the board.  Some remain uncorrected  to this day  ithe  joint duty 
assignment with 6tL1 fleet for example).  He respectfully requests 
that these errors be corrected and he be afforded the opportunity 
for a second look by SSB. 

Applicant’s complete response is attached 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 
warranting correcting the CY96B OSB, Assignment  History, Command 
Level,  to  reflect  “DD/J,,’ effective  30  August  1995.  The  Air 
Force  states that  the  applicant  w a s   assigned  to  16th Air  Force 
and occupied a 16t” Air Force position with the US Six Fleet and 
that  he  was  not  serving  in  a  joint  position.  Therefore,  the 
Board is of the opinion that since the position the applicant was 
serving in was not  a  joint position, there is no basis  to grant 
this request. 

4.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice 
warranting favorable action on the remainder of his requests.  In 
this  respect,  we  note  that  the  Air  Force  states  the  O S B s  
contained  numerous errors and  his  OSR  did  not  contain  the MSM, 
loLC, citation  for  the  period  30 October  1993  to  31 July  1995. 
While  it  cannot  be  conclusively  determined  what  impact  these 
errors would  have  had  on  the  outcome  of  the  CY95B,  CY96B,  and 
CY97B Boards and f o r   any subsequent boards, we believe that they 
served  to  deprive him  of  fair  consideration.  In addition,  the 
Air Force states the OSR did not contain the LOE closing 26 June 
1984, as required by regulation, and that the LOE closing 15 May 
1991 was not  required to be  in his  record.  However, we believe 
that  in  order  to  make  the  applicant’s OSR  complete,  the  LOE 
closing 15 May 1991 should also be filed in the applicant’s OSR. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  and  in  an  effort  to  remove  any 
possibility of  an  injustice to the  applicant, we  recommend that 
his record be corrected to the extent indicated below. 

Applicant’s  request  that  the  ARCOM,  Basic,  citation  for  t h e  
period 31 July 1983 to 3 September 1983, be placed in his OSR  is 
a moot  point.  The Air  Force  states the  ARCOM,  Basic, citation 
was filed in the OSR  on 8 May 1984. 

e 

I 

I 

97-02134 

THE  BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT : 
The pertinent military records c:f  :he  Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corT-’ L t _ c : t c i  to show that: 

a.  The  OSB  for  the  C’r’955 

corrected to reflect: 

Colonel  Selection  Board  be 

1. The  MSM,  loLC,  f a r  

t n e   period  30 October  1993  to 

31 July 1995, and the citation, be placed i.n  his OSR. 

2. The duty title of  “ F l e e t   Air Force Officer,” effective 

30 August  1995. 

3 .  Under Assignment  H i s t o r y ,   Major  Command  as  “EUR”  and 

Organization as “AFELM SIXTH FLEET,” effective 30 August 1995. 

b.  The  OSB  for  the  CY9GB  Colonel  Selection  Board  be 

corrected to reflect: 

1. Aeronautical/Flyiny  CaLa 

effective 24 July 1996. 

as  “Master  Navigator, ” 

2. Assignment  Histox-y,  Major  Command  as  “EUR”  and 

Organization as “AFELM SIXTH F L E E T ,  ”  effective 30 August 1995. 

3. Command  Level,  be  csrrected  to  reflect  “NAF,” 

effective 30 August 1995. 

c.  The  LOEs  for  the  periods  7  March  1984  through  26  June 
1984 and 30 November  1990 through 15 May  1991, be  placed  in his 
OSR in their proper sequence. 

d.  The MSM, loLC, citation, far  the  period  30 October  1993 

to 31 July 1995, be placed in his 3SR for the CY96B Board. 

It  is further recommended that  his  record, reflecting the  above 
corrections, be considered f o r   promotion to the grade of colonel 
by  SSB  for  the  Calendar  Years  1995B,  199SB, and  1 9 9 7 B   Colonel 
Selection  Boards  and  for  any  subsequent  boards  that  the 
correcteions were not a matter of record. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session on  25  June  1998, under  the  provisions of  AFI 
36-2603: 

Ms. Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member 

97-02134 

All  members  voted  to  correct  t h e   records, as  recommended.  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 13 J u l   97, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 17 Sep 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPAJ, dated 22 Sep 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPAISl, dated 10 Oct 97. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 12 Nov 97. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Dec 97. 
Applicant's Response, dated 24 Dec 97. 

Panel Chair 

10