AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RE 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

vF?l U998 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-02337 (Case 4) 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  YES 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1.  The  duty  title  of  "Command  Manager"  and  associated  job 
description, with the effective date of 19 May 1986, be corrected 
in the Personnel Data System (PDS). 
2.  The revised Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF) for the CY96C 
Central  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board  (P0596C), with  a 
"Definitely Promote" recommendation, be accepted for file. 
3.  His  corrected  record  be  considered by  a  Special  Selection 
Board  (SSB) for promotion to the grade of  lieutenant colonel by 
the CY96C Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 
8 July 1996. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

During the May 87 and May 88 time frame, he was appointed Command 
Manager and his records should be corrected to reflect this duty 
title. 
He had several minor changes approved and added to his record via 
the appeals process.  As a result, his CY94 PRF was upgraded to a 
Definitely Promote  (DP) and he believes his CY96  PRF  should be 
upgraded based  upon the same information that upgraded the CY94 
PRF . 
In support of his request, applicant  submits copies of  the AFI 
36-2402  decision,  which  contains  statements  from  his  former 
superiors, AF Form 2096, the revised P0596C PRF, statements from 
the  senior  rater  and  MLRB  president,  the  P0594A  PRF  and 
additional  documents  associated  with  the  issues  cited  in  his 
contentions (Exhibit A). 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS) 
reveals the applicant's Total Active Federal Commissioned Service 
Date  (TAFCSD) as 30 May 1979.  He is currently serving on active 

duty in the grade of major, with an effective date and date of 
rank of 1 July 1990. 
The applicant provided a copy of AF Form 2 0 9 6 ,   dated 8 May 1986, 
which  reflects  the  duty  title  change  of  Command  Manager, 
effective  19 May  1986.  Applicant  also  provided  a  copy  of  an 
earlier  extract  from  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS), which 
reflects  the  duty  title  of  Command  Manager,  effective  18 May 
1986.  A  review of  applicant's  current duty history in the PDS 
does  not  reflect  the  aforementioned  entry. 
The  Officer 
Effectiveness Report, OER), rendered for the period  18 May  1986 
through 17 May  1987, contains the duty title of "Advanced Space 
System Acquisition Manager." 
Applicant s  OPR  profile,  commencing  with  the  report  closing, 
17 May 1991 follows: 

Period Endinq 

17 May 91 
26 Jan 92 
26 Dec 92 
#  2 Dec 93 
2 Dec 94 
##  2 Dec 95 
2 Dec 96 

Evaluation 
Meets Standards (MS) 

MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

#  Top report  at  the time he was  considered and nonselected  for 
promotion to lieutenant colonel by  the CY94A Central Lieutenant 
Colonel Board, which convened on 11 October 1994. 
##  Top report at  the time he was considered and nonselected for 
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY96C  Central Lieutenant 
Colonel Board, which convened on 8 July 1996. 
Information maintained in the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals 
that  the  applicant  currently  has  an  established  date  of 
separation of 31 May 1 9 9 9 .  

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Air  Force  Evaluations  Board  Recorder,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPEB, 
provided  a  technical  review of  applicant's  case  concerning the 
PRF issue.  DPPPEB stated that  the applicant had  a PRF  for the 
CY94 Lieutenant Colonel Board upgraded to a  'DP"  based upon the 
addition of  new  information to his  record  (OPR content  change, 
duty title change and Air Force Commendation Medal updated).  His 
original senior rater and the present Management Level Evaluation 
Board  (MLEB) president  supported  the  content  change; however , 
applicant was nonselected by the CY97 SSB. 
DPPPEB  stated  that  the  applicant  now  requests his  CY96  PRF  be 
upgraded based  upon  this  same new  information that  allowed  his 

2 

97- 02337 

. 

CY94 PRF to be upgraded.  The original senior rater supports the 
request; however, the present  MLEB  president, AFMC/CV  does not 
AFI  36-2401  stipulates  that 
support  the  requested  upgrade. 
changes to the overall rating on a PRF require both the senior 
rater and the MLEB president. 
DPPPEB stated that overall, the content of the PRF contains all 
valid statements; however, since the present MLEB president does 
not  support  the  applicant's  request  to  upgrade  the  overall 
promotion  recommendation,  DPPPEB  recommended  that  the  present 
PRF, with  a  \\PromoteN recommendation stand.  DPPPEB  indicated 
that  the  overall  comments  in  Section  IV,  Promot ion 
Recommendation, support  an  overall  recommendation of  \\Promote" 
(Exhibit C). 
The Directorate of Assignments, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, responded to the 
duty title issue.  DPAIS1 stated that the applicant submitted an 
AF  Form  2096,  which  awarded  him  the  requested duty  title,  to 
substantiate  this  correction.  Although  the  AF  Form  2096  is 
considered a valid source document, AFMAN 36-262 states, 'If  the 
OER/OPR does not agree with the requested change, a request must 
be  submitted  to  correct  the OER/OPR."  DPAIS1  does  not  concur 
with  allowing  changes  that  conflict  with  source  documents  on 
file.  DPAIS1 recommended the applicant's  request be disapproved 
until the Board reaches a decision on whether or not to allow the 
May 87 and May 88 OPRs to be corrected (Exhibit D). 
The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, stated that the 
applicant has had several appeal actions over the last four years 
(copies provided). 
DPPPA  indicated  that  the  contested  duty 
history  entry has  been  a  matter  of  record  for  11 years.  The 
applicant  attempted  to appeal  his  17  May  1987  and  17 May  1988 
Officer Effectiveness Reports  (OERs) to have the duty title and 
job  description  changed.  The  Evaluation  Report  Appeal  Board 
( E M )  considered the applicant's appeal for merit; however, the 
ERAB time-barred the appeal.  DPPPA concurs with the assessment 
of HQ AFPC/DPPPEB concerning the  PRF  issue.  DPPPA stated that 
the senior rater supports the applicant's  request.  However, the 
Management Level Review Board  (MLRB) president does not support 
the applicant's  request for a "DP" recommendation, but is willing 
to support a reworded PRF.  DPPPA indicated that while it may be 
argued  that  the  contested PRF was  a  factor in the  applicant's 
nonselection,  there  is  no  clear  evidence  that  it  negatively 
impacted  his  promotion  opportunity.  Based  on  the  assessments 
provided by HQ AFPC/DPAISl and HQ AFPC/DPPPEB and on the evidence 
provided, DPPPA recommended the duty title issue be  time-barred 
and  the  PRF  issue be  denied.  If  the Board  considers the duty 
title issue, DPPPEB recommended denial  (Exhibit E). 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that 
even minor changes can make the difference between a Definitely 

3 

97- 02337 

The 

Promote  "DP" and  a Promote  'P."  Both the senior rater and  the 
MLEB president determined that changes made  to his records were 
sufficient  to  award  him  a  "DP"  recommendation  for  the  CY94 
Lieutenant  Colonel  SSB.  The  same  senior  rater  determined  a 
second time that the same changes, with two years of additional 
exemplary work, was sufficient to change his PRF from \\Pff to "DP" 
for  the  CY96  SSB.  He  does  not  know  why  the  MLEB  president 
disagreed with the same PRF recommendation for the CY96 SSB.  He 
believes  that  if  anything,  his  record  was  strengthened,  not 
weakened, by two more years of outstanding OPRs.  He stated that 
an individual being considered for above-the-zone promotion will 
not get promoted without a "DP" on the PRF.  He considers DPPPA's 
insinuation  that  he  is  attempting  to  recreate  history  to  be 
He  corrected  errors  which  were  accepted  by  two 
insulting. 
general  officers. 
senior  rater  provided  a  justification 
letter detailing why he changed the CY94 "PI'  recommendation to a 
\'DP"  and  essentially used  the  same  justification  for the  CY96 
\\DP" recommendation. 
As to the duty entry, when his OPR closed out in May 1988, he was 
reassigned  to  a  geographically-separated  unit  (the  Military 
Personnel Flight was  not  co-located with  the duty  assignment). 
He was unable to review his duty records from May  1988 to July 
1991  (end of his geographically-separated unit  assignment).  It 
was then that he discovered the error and started the correction 
process through the ERAB.  His Military Personnel Flight  (MPF) , 
in  accordance  with  Air  Force  regulations  (reference  MIBR 
application), corrected his  duty  history  based  on  the AF  Form 
2096 source document.  DPPPA directed the MPF to change his duty 
title back, in contravention to Air Force regulation.  He stated 
that the Air Force has a responsibility to maintain an accurate 
service history. 
A complete copy of this response is appended at Exhibit E. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 
2.  The  application concerning the  PRF  issue was  timely  filed. 
The  application concerning the duty  title  issue was  not  timely 
filed; however, it  is  in the  interest of  justice to excuse the 
failure to timely file. 
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  opinions  and 
recommendations  of  the  respective Air  Force  offices  and  adopt 
their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the 
applicant  has  not  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice. 
Therefore, absent sufficient evidence to the contrary, we find no 

4 

97- 02337 

compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this 
application. 
4.  The applicant’s case is adequately documented and it has not 
been  shown that  a  personal  appearance with  or without  counsel 
will  materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s) 
involved.  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 
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  9  July  1998,  under  the provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 
Exhibit 

A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
E. 
F. 
G .  

DD Form 149, dated 31 Jul 97, w/atchs. 
Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, dated 29 Aug 97. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 27 Aug 97. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 24 Sep 97. 
Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 13 Oct 97. 
Letter from applicant, dated 13 Nov 97. 

Panel Chair 

,’” 

5 

97- 02337