AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

JUW6 1398 : COUNSEL :  None 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97- 03298 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

-- 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

The  Officer  Selection Brief  (OSB) reviewed by  the  Calendar  Year 
Major  Selection  Board  be  corrected  and  he  be  given 
1 9 9 7  
consideration for promotion by Special Selection Board  (SSB). 

(CY97.C) 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The OSB did not reflect his correct overseas duty history and the 
source  of  his  commission  should  be  reflected  as  Reserve  Officer 
Training  Corps  (ROTC)  2  year  instead  of  ROTC  4  year. 
After 
feedback  from  his  commander,  he  discovered  that  temporary  duty 
The  source of commission 
(TDYs) should be  reflected on the OSB. 
was  his  oversight  and  it  has  been  corrected  at  his  Mil&ary 
Personnel Flight  (MPF) . 
The applicant's  submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

- 

b STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the 
grade of captain. 
He has one nonselection by the CY97C  major selection board. 
The following is a resume of his OPRs since promotion to captain. 

PERIOD ENDING 
2 3   May 1 9 9 1  
2 3   May 1 9 9 2  
2 3   Apr 1 9 9 3  
2 3   Apr 1 9 9 4  
2 3   Apr 1 9 9 5  
*  14 Jan 1 9 9 6  
14 Jan 1 9 9 7  

OVERALL EVALUATION 

Meets Standards  (MS) 

MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

Note: *  Top report on file when C Y 9 7 C   Major Board  convened. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Air  Force  Conus  Assignments  Procedures  Branch,  AFPC/DPAIPl, 
reviewed  the  application  and  stated  that  upon  reviewing  the 
applicant's  TDY  Accumulator  for  the  missing  TDYs,  it  was  noted 
that PC-I11 was updated to show his TDYs.  In accordance with AFI 
36-2110,  the  applicant  had  to  serve  TDY  300  days  or  more  in  a 
consecutive  18-month period  to get  credit  for a  Short Tour.  Or 
365 days or more  in a consecutive 3 year period  for a Long Tour. 
He had two TDYs, one for 15 days and the other for 19 days.  Based 
on this information, they recommended denial. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The Appeals  and  SSB  Branch, AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  the  application 
and  stated  that  the  two  overseas  duty  history  entries  the 
applicant wants included on the OSB  date back to 1994 and earlier, 
and  the  ROTC  4-year has  been  in  the personnel  data  system  (PDS) 
since  the  applicant  entered  the  Air  Force. 
The  DOD  Directive 
1320.11  states,  "A  special  selection  board  shall  not. ..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." 
It  is  obvious  that  the  errors  claimed  were  discoverable  at  the 
The  applicant  provided. nothing  convincing 
time  they  occurred. 
that  the  errors  were  not  discoverable  until  September  1997,nor 
.  has  he  offered  a  concrete  explanation  for  filing  late.  It  is 
noted  that  the  TDYs  to  Korea  and  Canada  has  been  updated  in 
PC-111.  According  to the assignments section, the TDYs would  not 
have been  included on his OSB.  Therefore, there is no basis  for 
promotion  reconsideration  on  this  issue. 
The  applicant  also 
aontends that the source of commission should reflect ROTC 2-year 
versus  ROTC  4-year. 
They  noted  this  information  was  also 
reflected  on  his  OSBs  for  his  below-the-promotion  zone  (BPZ) 
boards  -  CY95A  and  CY96A major boards.  The Officer Preselection 
Brief  (OPB)  that  is sent to each  eligible  officer several months 
prior  to a  selection board  contains data  that will  appear on the 
OSB  at  the  central  board  and  written  instructions attached  give 
specific  instructions  to  carefully  examine  the  brief  for 
completeness and accuracy.  If this information was  incorrect  for 
his  in-the-promotion zone  (IPZ) board,  then it was also incorrect 
The  applicant  was  given  two 
when  he  was  considered  BPZ. 
opportunities prior  to  the CY97C board  to  review his  OPB  and  get 
While  it  may  be  argued  that  the 
this  information  corrected. 
contested 
applicant's 
nonselection,  there  is  no  clear  evidence  that  the  alleged 
discrepancies  negatively  impacted  his  promotion  opportunity. 
Based  on  the  evidence  provided,  they  recommend  denial  of  the 
request. 

information 

factors 

were 

in 

the 

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

2 

AFBCMR 97-03298 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies  of  the  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on 
5 January 1998 for review and comment within 30 days.  As  of this 
date, no response has been received in this office. 

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.  After 
thoroughly reviewing the evidence presented, we  are not persuaded 
that  the  requested  relief is warranted.  Applicant  contends that 
his temporary duty  (TDY) assignments to Canada and Korea should be 
reflected on his officer selection brief  ( O S B ) .  
On the contrary, 
in accordance with the governing instruction, applicant would have 
had to serve TDY 300 or more days in a consecutive 18-month period 
to  gain  credit  for  a  short  tour  or  365  days  or  more  in  a 
consecutive 3-year period to qualify for a long tour.  Applicant's 
total TDY amounted  to  34 days, hardly  enough time to entitle him 
to overseas credit.  Further, as noted by  the Air  Force, TDYs- are 
not  listed on O S B s .  
With  regard to the ROTC issue, we  note  that 
this discrepancy  has been  in applicant's  records since his  entry 
on  active  duty  and  he  has  taken  no  steps  to  have  it  corrected 
until his nonselection by the CY97C board, nor did he exercise his 
right to communicate with  the board president  about his  concerns. 
The Air  Force has  indicated that the central boards  evaluate  the 
entire  officer  record  and  it  is  highly  unlikely  the  erroneous 
source of his commission was 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 the source of his ROTC  commission was a 
harmless  error. 
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  t h i s  
application. 

3 

AFBCMR 97-03298 

The following members of  the Board  considered this application in 
Executive  Session  on  2  June  1998,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. LeRoy T. Baseman, Panel Chair 
Mr.  Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Ms.  Peggy E. Gordon, Member 
Ms Kay Byrne, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

DD Form 149,  dated 28 Oct 97 with atchs. 
Exhibit A. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAIPI, dated 11 Dec 97: 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 17 Dec 97. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 5 Jan 98. 

LEROY T. BASEMAN 
Panel Chair 

. .-- 

4 

AFBCMR 97-03298