AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECO 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03475 vh 2 2 1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

His corrected record be  considered by  a Special Selection Board 
(SSB) for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant colonel  by  the 
CY97C  (21 July 1997) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board 
(P0597C). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  PME  recommendations  were  incorrect  on  the  OPR,  closing 
25 October 1996, when considered by the CY97C Central Lieutenant 
Colonel Board.  His commanders incorrectly determined that it was 
inappropriate  to  recommend  any  major  for  attendance  to  Senior 
Service School  ( S S S )  . 
The information on his Officer Selection Brief  (OSB), seen by the 
CY97C  Central  Lieutenant Colonel  Board, contained  a  duty  title 
that was  in error  and  a missing  duty  title.  His duty  history 
entry, effective  2  October  1992, should have  reflected  "Chief, 
Commodities  Section"  instead  of  111" and  addition  of  a  23 June 
1997 duty history entry to read, "Deputy Commander of Operations, 
4407 Reconnaissance Squadron." 
In support of his request, applicant submits a  copy of a letter 
he sent to the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board President 
and an extract from the Personnel Data System  (PDS) of his duty 
history  (Exhibit A). 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS) 
reveals  the  applicant's Total  Active  Federal  Military  Service 
Date (TAFMSD) as 1 June 1981.  He was integrated into the Regular 
Air Force on 27 August 1985.  The applicant is currently serving 
on active duty in the grade of major, with an effective date and 
date of  rank of 1 January 1994. 

The applicant's initial request for correction of  his assignment 
history  was  administratively corrected  subsequent  to  the  CY97C 
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.  The applicant's request to 

have  the contested OPR  corrected to reflect PME recommendations 
of  ItSSSt'  was corrected via his AFI 36-2401 application subsequent 
to the CY97C selection board; however, SSB consideration was not 
approved. 

Applicant's  OPR  profile,  commencing  with  the  report  closing 
29 Jun 93, follows: 

Period Endinq 

Evaluation 

29 Jun 93 
23 May 94 
25 Oct 94 
25 Oct 95 
*  25 Oct 96 
25 Oct 97 

Meets Standards (MS) 

MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

*  Top report at  the time he was  considered and nonselected for 
promotion to lieutenant colonel by  the  CY97C Central Lieutenant 
Colonel Board, which convened on 21 July 1997. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Directorate  of  Assignments,  HQ  AFPC/DPAISl,  provided  a 
technical advisory.  DPAISl stated that the applicant's 2 Oct 92 
entry  has  previously  been  corrected  by  the  Military  Personnel 
Flight  (MPF) to  reflect  the  duty  title  of  "Chief, Commodities 
Section"  based  on  the  OPR  submitted. 
The  applicant  also 
submitted an AF Form 2096 to validate his request for the 23 Jun 
97 entry of  "Deputy Commander of Operations, 4407 Reconnaissance 
Squadron."  This AF  Form 2096 coincides with the update made by 
the MPF.  DPAISl concurs with the corrections made.  DPAISl also 
made a correction to the 28 Aug 88 duty history entry to reflect 
the duty location of St. Louis  (Exhibit C) . 
The Directorate of  Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, 
reviewed this application and recommended denial.  DPPPA stated 
that the 2 Oct 92 contested entry has been a matter of record for 
over  five years.  The  applicant  submitted an  application under 
AFI  36-2401 to  request that  his  25 Oct  96 OPR  be  corrected  to 
show a recommendation for SSS instead of  ISS.  The request was 
approved,  but  the  applicant  was  not  granted  promotion 
reconsideration by the P0597C board on this issue. 

DPPPA stated applicant's claim that the earliest evidence of the 
number I'1" entered in error on this entry is dated 1 Apr 96 lacks 
validity.  DPPPA  retrieved  copies  of  the  applicant's  Officer 
Selection Briefs  (OSBs) from  the  CY94A  (11 Oct  94)  and  CY96C 
(8 Jul  96)  lieutenant  colonel  below-the-promotion  zone  ( B P Z )  
boards  and  noted  that  the  2  Oct  92  entry  on  both  OSBs  also 
  under  the  duty  title  section.  The  applicant 
included  the  I t
received OPBs for both of these BPZ boards, yet he took no action 
to get the information corrected until he was nonselected by the 

t

l

'

2 

97-03475 

P0597C  (in-the-promotion zone  (IPZ) board) . 
Regardless,  even 
though the information on the OSB was  in error, the applicant's 
officer  selection  record  (OSR) contained  an  evaluation  report 
covering that period  of  time, and DPPPA believes  the promotion 
board  took  this  into  consideration  when  his  record  was 
considered.  The  applicant  could  have  addressed  this  missing 
information in a letter to the board president.  DPPPA does not 
support promotion reconsideration on this issue. 

DPPPA  indicated  that  the  applicant's  letter  to  the  board 
president concerning his 23 Jun 97 duty history entry not being 
included  on  the  P0597C  OSB  was  received  and  forwarded  for 
inclusion  in  his  officer  selection record  (OSR) on  18  Jul  97, 
prior  to  the  convening  of  the  selection  board  on  21  Jul  97. 
Since the board took this into consideration during the promotion 
process, DPPPA does not support promotion reconsideration on this 
issue. 

DPPPA stated that while it may be argued that the erroneous duty 
history  entry  (2  Oct  92)  was  a  factor  in  the  applicant's 
nonselection,  there  is  no  clear  evidence  that  it  negatively 
impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the 
entire  OSR.  DPPPA is  not  convinced  that  either  the  erroneous 
entry on the OSB or the wrong level of PME recommendation on the 
25  Oct  96  OPR  contributed to  the  applicant's nonselection.  A 
complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

He  asks the Board  to waive  the untimeliness  in the  interest of 
justice.  The absence of  the Oct  92 duty history on his OSB was 
by no means a minor omission.  The promotion board members were 
unable to tell from his OSB that he held an extremely responsible 
position  as  the  chief  of  one  of  the  Air  Force's  largest 
commodities flights, while career broadening into contracting and 
manufacturing. 
This  constituted  an  error  that  justifies  a 
Special Selection Board  (SSB).  As  to  the  Jun  97 duty  history 
update, it is clearly evident that his duty title and its implied 
responsibilities as  an  operations officer  (Deputy Commander of 
Operations  [Deployed]) were not reflected on his OSB at the time 
the promotion board  convened.  He was  informed by  the Military 
Personnel Flight  (MPF) in Saudi Arabia that this update could not 
be made until he returned to his home base.  Because he was not 
returning home prior to the date of the promotion board, he sent 
a letter to the board president advising the board of his current 
duty  title.  He  does  not  believe  the  board  members  saw  that 
letter.  Although DPPPA now insists they did, this determination 
is  in  conflict  with  information previously  supplied  to  him  by 
AFPC.  Of the three errors/omissions existing within his records 
at the time they were reviewed by the CY97C promotion board, the 
PME  error  is  by  far  the  most  damaging.  He  has  provided  a 
statement from his rating chain acknowledging that he should have 
received  a  recommendation  for  SSS;  and,  it  never  was  their 

3 

9 7 - 0 3 4 7 5  

intention  to  send  the  negative  signal  embedded  within  this 
inadvertent and inappropriate PME recommendation. 

He 
He petitions the Board  for the opportunity to meet  an SSB. 
firmly believes that these three errors within his record made it 
impossible for the board members to fairly and accurately assess 
his  promotion  potential.  A  complete  copy of  this  response  is 
appended at Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

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

2.  The application concerning the 23 June 1997 duty history was 
timely  filed. 
The  issue  regarding  the  2  October  1992  duty 
history  entry  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 
noted  that  the  requested duty  title  corrections  to  applicant's 
assignment history were made  by  the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility,  HQ AFPC/DPAISl. 
With  regard  to  applicant's 
request for promotion consideration by a Special Selection Board 
(SSB) ,  we are unpersuaded by the documentation provided that the 
applicant has been the victim of an injustice.  In this respect, 
we  note  that  even  though  his  Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB) , 
prepared  for  the  P0597C  selection  board,  did  not  accurately 
reflect his 2 October 1992 duty title, the duty title of  "Chief, 
Commodities  Section"  was  correctly  reflected  on  his  Officer 
Performance Report  (OPR), closing 29 June 1993.  Hence, it is our 
opinion, that the selection board would  have been knowledgeable 
of the applicant's correct duty title during that period of time. 
As to the 23 June 1997 duty history entry, the Air Force office 
of  primary  responsibility,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPA,  stated  that  the 
applicant's letter to the P0597C board president, which explained 
his then current duty title, was in his Officer Selection Record 
(0%)  when  it  was  considered  by  the  P0597C  selection  board. 
Therefore, we believe the P0597C selection board was aware of the 
information.  With  regard to the OPR, closing  25 October 1996, 
reflecting  the  incorrect  Professional  Military  Education  (PME) 
recommendation,  we  note  that  the  report  was  subsequently 
corrected,  through  his  AFI  36-2401  application,  to  reflect  a 
recommendation for Senior Service School  (SSS) .  Although the OPR 
under  review did  not  reflect  the  SSS  recommendation, we  noted 
that  the  Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF), prepared  for the 
P0597C selection board, did  in fact recommend the  applicant for 
SSS selection.  Therefore, in our opinion, the  selection board 
was well aware of the appropriate PME recommendation.  In view of 
the  foregoing, we  believe  the  members  of  the  P0597C  selection 
board were knowledgeable of the applicant's complete duty history 
and  the  appropriate  PME  recommendation  at  the  time  he  was 

4 

97-03475 

considered  for promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel.  We  therefore 
conclude that  no basis  exists  to  recommend favorable action on 
the applicant's request for SSB consideration. 

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 11 August 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair 
Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Member 
Mr. Henry Romo Jr., Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Nov 97, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, dated 1 6   Dec 97. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 2 Feb 98. 
Exhibit F. 

Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 1 5   Jan 98, w/atchs. 
Letter from applicant, dated 27 Feb 98, w/atchs. 

DOUGLAS J. HEADY 
Panel Chair 

5 

97-03475 

DLPAhZTMENT O F  THE A I R   F O R C E  

HEADQUARTERS  A I R F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE  TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

16 DEC  1997 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPAISl 

550 C Street West, Suite 32 
Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4734 

SUBJECT: 

Form 149) 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests two corrections to his duty history.  He also 

requests Special Selection Board consideration if any corrections are made. 

Reason for Request. Applicant requests his duty history dated 2 Oct 92 be updated to reflect 
“Chief, Commodities Section” instead of  “1” and his 23 Jun 97 entry be added to read “Deputy 
Commander of Operations 4407 Reconnaissance SQ.” 

Discussion.  Applicants 2 Oct 92 entry has previously been corrected by EAPF to reflect duty 
title of  “Chief, Commodities Section” based on OPR’s submitted.  The applicant submitted an 
AF Form 2096 to validate his request for the 23 Jun 97 entry as “Deputy Commander of 
Operations 4407 Reconnaissance SQ.”  This AJ? Form 2096 coincides with the update made by 
the MPF.  We concur with their corrections.  Also in reviewing applicant’s records, the 
organization location on his 28 Aug 88 entry was not clear text, so I corrected it to read St Louis. 

* 

Recommendation. Prior to CY 97 Lt Col Board, member sent a letter dated 10 Jul97 to 
Board President regarding duty entry dated 23 Jun 97, which at the time was the current entry 
and had not yet been updated.  We do not know whether or not the Board ever saw the letter, so 
our recommendation is to defer to HQ AFPCIDPPPAB. 

Case Forwarded To.  Application has been forwarded to HQ AFPC/DPPPAB. 

Point of Contac 

*z& 

- 

ARA L. SMITH, GS-11 

Chief, Reports and Queries Team 
Directorate of Assignments 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

i 

I

 

,

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BASE TEXAS 

15 JAN98 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

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

Requested Action.  The applicant requests his duty history entry, effective 2 Oct 92, be 

updated to reflect “Chief, Commodities Section” instead of “1” and that a 23 Jun 97 duty history 
entry be added to read, “Deputy Commander of Operations, 4407 Reconnaissance Sq.” 
Although not specifically requested, we believe the applicant desires promotion reconsideration 
by the CY97C (21 Jul97) lieutenant colonel board (P0597C). 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends the “1” on the duty history resulted from a data 
entry error.  In addition, he states the information on the position he was serving in at the time of 
the board could not be updated due to his deployment, and he was told the update to the 
personnel data system (PDS) would have to be completed at his “home base” upon his return. 

Recommendation.  Deny due to lack of merit. 

Facts and Comments. 

a. The issue regarding the 2 Oct 92 duty history entry is not timely filed; however, the 

request regarding the 23 Jun 97 duty history is timely filed.  The contested 2 Oct 92 entry has 
been a matter of record for over five years.  The test to be applied is not merely whether the 
applicant discovered the error within three years, but whether though due diligence, he could or 
should have discovered the error@) (see 0pJAGA.F 1988/56,28 Sep 88, and the cases cited 
therein).  Clearly, the alleged error@) upon which he relies have been discoverable since the duty 
history was updated in the PDS.  Further, DoD Directive 1320.1 1 states, “A special selection 
board shall not..consider any officer who might, by maintaining reasonably carefirl records, have 
discovered and taken steps to correct that error or omission on which the original board based its 
decision against promotion.”  Therefore, we see no valid reason to waive the statute of 
limitations on this issue and grant promotion reconsideration on this issue. 

b.  Application under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation 

Reports, would not have been appropriate.  However, the applicant submitted an application 
underAFI 36-2401 to request that his 25 Oct 96 oEcer perfbrmance report (OPR) be corrected 

to show a recommendation for senior service school instead of intermediate service school.  The 
request was approved, but the applicant was not granted promotion reconsideration by the 
P0597C board on this issue,  We are including a copy of the appeal for the AFBCMR’S review. 

c.  The governing directive is AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective 

Continuation, 1 Mar 96. 

d.  The applicant has one nonselection by the P0597C board. 

e.  HQ AFPCDPAIS 1 provided a technical advisory, dated 16 Dec 97, in which they 

discuss the duty history corrections made by the applicant’s servicing military personnel flight 
QvlFF).  They also reviewed the applicant’s records and made a minor correction to the 28 Aug 
88 duty history entry. 

f. 2 Oct 92 Duty History Entry.  The applicant claims that the earliest evidence of 
the number “1” entered in error on this entry is dated 1 Apr 96.  This statement lacks validity. 
We retrieved copies of his officer selection briefs (OSBs) (attached) fiom the CY94A (1 1 Oct 
94) (P0594A) and CY96C (8 Jul96) (P0596C) lieutenant coIonel below-the-promotion zone 
(BPZ) boards and noted that the 2 Oct 92 entry on both OSBs also included the “1” under the 
duty title section.  The oficer preselection brief (OPB) is sent to each eligible officer several 
months prior to a selection board.  The OPB contains data that will appear on the OSB at the 
central board.  Written instructions attached to the OPB and given to the officer before the central 
selection board specifically instruct hindher to Carefully examine the brief for completeness and 
accuracy.  If any errors are found, he/she must take corrective action prior to the selection board, 
not after it.  The instructions specifically state, “Officers will not be considered by a Speciaf 
Selection Board & in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the 
error or omission in h m e r  records and could have taken timely corrective action” (emphasis 
added).  The applicant received OPBs for both of these BPZ boards, yet he took no action to get 
the information corrected until he was nonselected by the P0597C (in-the-promotion zone) 
board.  Regardless, even though the information on the OSB was in error, the applicant’s officer 
selection record contained an evaluation report covering that period of time, and we believe the 
promotion board took this into consideration when his record was considered.  Further, he could 
have addressed this missing information in a letter to the board president.  We do not support 
promotion reconsideration on this issue. 

g.  23 Jun 97 Duty History Entry.  While this entry was not included on the 

applicant’s P0597C OSB, and he contends his letter to the board president concerning this duty 
title did not arrive in time to be considered, this is not the case.  His letter to the board president 
(copy attached to appeal) was received and forwarded for inclusion in his officer selection record 
(OSR) on 18 Jul97-the  Friday before the board convened on Monday, 2 1 Jul97.  Therefore, 
this iss& is moot since the board was aware of this information.  Since the board took this into 
consideration during the promotion process, we do not support reconsideration on this issue. 

-. 

h. While it may be argued that the erroneous duty history entry (2 Oct 92) was a 

factor in the applicant’s nonselection, there is no clear evidence that it negatively impacted his 

n 

promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire OSR (including the promotion 
recommendation form, officer performance reports, officer effectiveness reports, training reports, 
letters of evaluation, decorations, and OSB, assessing whole person factors such as job 
performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic 
and professional military education.  We are not convinced either the erroneous entry on the OSB 
or the wrong level of PME recommendation on the 25 Oct 96 OPR contributed to the applicant’s 
nonselection. 

Summary. Based on the evidence provided, we recommend denial due to lack of merit. 

Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

-.