AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUL  2 0  1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03154 

COUNSEL:  NOT INDICATED 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He  be  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel by  Special Selection Board  (SSB) for the  Calendar Year 
1997B  (CY97B) Lieutenant  Colonel  Board,  with  the  inclusion  of 
two academic degrees. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

Two  Education  Degrees  were  missing  from  his  records  when  the 
Lieutenant Colonel Chaplain Board met on 2 June 1997, giving him 
an unfair disadvantage in promotion competition. 

In support of  his  request, he  submits college  transcripts, and 
his officer selection brief  (OSB). 

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 major. 

He was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of 
lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY97B  lieutenant  colonel  selection 
board which commenced on 2 June 1997. 

.- 

The two academic degrees were not listed on his OSB. 

The applicant's  OER profile since 1994 reflects the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

28 Aug  94 
30 Apr 95 
30 Apr 96 
30 Apr 97 

MEETS STANDARDS 
MEETS STANDARDS 
MEETS STANDARDS 
MEETS STANDARDS 

97-03154 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Directorate  of  Personnel  Program  Management,  HQ 
AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this  application  and  states  that  the 
applicant's  academic  degrees  were  not  listed  on  his  OSB.  The 
proper  way  to  update  academic  information  would  have  been  to 
forward  original  transcripts  to  the  Air  Force  Institute  of 
Technology  (AFLT).  They  are  the  only  agency  authorized  to 
update academic data.  Consequently,  the information would have 
i  been present for review by the promotion board.  In addition to 
contacting AFIT, he could have elected to write a letter to the 
board  president  identifying  the  absence  of  the  two  academic 
degrees  and  included  copies  of  the  transcripts.  We  find  no 
evidence he wrote  any  such letter  to the board.  They conclude 
he  did  not  exercise  reasonable  diligence  to ensure  his  records 
were  accurate,  nor  did  he  take  timely  corrective  action. 
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant request. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  19  March  1998,  for  review  and  response  within 
thirty  (30)  days. 
As  of  this  date,  no  response  has  been 
received by the office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

I 

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 and adopt their rationale as the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim of an error or injustice.  The Air  Force states that the 
proper  way  to  update  academic  information  would  have  been  to 
forward  original  transcripts  to  the  Air  Force  Institute  of 
Technology  (AFIT).  They  are  the  only  agency  authorized  to 
update academic data.  In addition, he could have also chose to 
write  a  letter  to  the  board  president  identify  the  absence  of 
the two academic degrees and included capies of the transcripts. 

. .  

2 

97-03154 

He  did  not  do  so.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  substantial 
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  amlication 
in Executive  Session on  25  June  1998, under  the  provisions  of 
AFI 36-2603: 

- L  

- 

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

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A .  
DD  Form 149, dated 18 Sep 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B .   Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 6 Nov 97, w/atch. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Nov 97. 

PATRICIA W ZARODKIEWICZ 
Panel Chair 

3 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUMFORAFBCMR 
FROM: HQ AFPCIDPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8  . 
Randolph AFB TX  78150-4710 

8 6  NOV  1997 

1 9 4 7 -  1 9 8 7  

pequested Action.  ApplicAt requests specid selection board (SSB) consideration for the 

CY97B (2 Jun 97) (P0597B) central lieutenant coloneI promotion board with inclusion of two 
academic degrees. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends two education degrees were missing fiom his 
records when the P0597B board met 2 Jun 97, giving him an unfair disadvantage in promotion 
competition.  Although the officer does not specifl from which records the degrees were missing, 
we assume he is referring to his Officer Selection Brief (OSB). 

Recommendation. Deny . 

Facts and Comments: 

a.  Application is timely.  AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 
Reports does uot apply in this instance.  Applicant has one nonselection by the P0597B promo$on 
board. 

b. AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotion and Selective Continuation, 17 Mar 96, is the 

governing directive. 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant submits original transcripts fiom Sac@ 

Heart School of Theology and Golden Gate University. 

d.  The applicant's academic degrees were not listed on his OSB. However, eaph 
officer eligible for promotion consideration by the PO59713 board received an officer preselection 
brief (OPB) several months prior to the date the board convened in Jun 97.  Specifically, the 
OPBs for the P0597B board were sent to the Military Personnel Flights (MPFs) on 22 Feb 97 and 
should have been distributed to those eligible for promotion consideration approximately 10 days 
later.  The OPB contains the same data that will appear on OSB at the central board.  Written 
instructions attached to the OPB and given to the officer before the central selection board 
specifically instruct himher to carefully examine the brief for completeness and accuracy.  The 
instructions also provide addresses, and in most cases, phone numbers for each area responsible to 

. .”.  ”-4 

to the selection board, not after it.  The instructions specifically state, “OfJicers will 

assist the officer who identifies discrepancies.  If any errors are found, hdshe must take corrective 
action 
not be considered by a Special Sekction Board if; in exercising reasonable diligence, the 
oficer should have &covered  the error or odsiort in hi%%er records and could have taken 
timely corrective action” (emphasis added).  The proper way to update academic information ’ 
would have been to forward or@hal transcripts to the Air Force Institute of Technology (MI?). 
They are the only agency authorized to update academic data.  ConsequentIy, the information 
would have been present for review by the promotion board.  In addition to contacting AFIT, he 
could have elected to Write a letter to the P0597B board president identitjling the absence of the 
two academic degrees and included copies of the transcripts.  We find no evidence he wrote any 
such letter to the board.  We therefore conclude he did not exercise reasonable diligence to ensure 
his records were accurate, nor did he take timely corrective action. 

Summary.  The applicant has failed to provide anything to prove he received anythhg less 
than fair and impartial consideration.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of? 
denial is appropriate. 

MARIANNE STEkLING, Lt Col, U k h  
Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

’ 

I