. 

...  . .-.. 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03489 
COUNSEL :  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  No 

- 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

He be granted Special Selection Board  (SSB) consideration for the 
Calendar Y&ar  1997  (CY97C) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board with 
the Officer Performance Report  (OPR) closing 7 July 1997 included 
in his Officer Selection Record  (OSR). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
His Duty Air F-orce Specialty Code  (DAFSC) on the Officer Selection 
Brief  (OSB) reviewed by  the CY97C board was incorrectly listed as 
"11F3H" instead of "KllF3H."  The OPR in question should also have 
been  included  in his  military  records at  the  time  the  selection 
board convened. 

In support of his request, the applicant submitted a copy of  the 
OPR in question and a PC I11 sheet awarding the AFSC of K11F3H.  A 
letter was also submitted in his behalf  from the indorser to the 
Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA. 

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. 

The applicant has one nonselection by the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel 
Selection Board. 
The following is a resume of his OPRs since promotion to major. 

PERIOD ENDING 

18 Apr  1994 
18 Apr 1995 
#  18 Apr 1996 
*  7 Jul 1997 

OVERALL EVALUATION 
Meets Standard  (MS) 

MS 
MS 
MS 

Note: #  Top report reviewed by the CY97C board. 

*  OPR in question 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Evaluations  Procedures  Section, AFPC/DPPPEB,  reviewed 
the application and stated that the applicant only had  forty  (40) 
days supervision under the new rater.  The minimum required amount 
of  time  is  sixty  (60) days.  It appears  he  had  a  rater  change, 
effective  1 April  1997,  and  at  that  time  the  rater did  not  have 
enough  supervision  to  write  an  OPR.  On  8 July  1997,  he  had  a 
change of reporting official, thus causing an OPR with a'closeout 
date of  7  July  1997  as  an annual  report versus a  120 day  annual 
closing  out  2 9   July  1 9 9 7 .  
They  also  stated  that  since  the 
applicant was  In-the-Zone  (IPZ) for promotion,  a  report at  this 
time was not required for the central selection board  (CSB) as it 
would  have! been  for an Above-the-Zone  (APZ) officer.  Since  the 
applicant did not provide a step-by-step breakdown of when actual 
supervision  may  have  begun  underneath  any  of  his  raters,  they 
cannot  determine  whether  or  not  the  appropriate  number  of  days 
required for an OPR were actually met.  Closing out a report, when 
it  is  not  warranted,  to  meet  a  selection  board  is  not  a  valid 
reason,  especially  since  the  report  was  not  required. 
They 
recommended the request be denied. 

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

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  the 
application and  stated that OPRs on active duty  officers are due 
for  file  at  HQ AFPC  no  later  than  60 days  after  closeout date. 
Therefore,  the  OPR  would  not  have  been  due  for  file  until 
7 September  1 9 9 7 .  
It  was  not  due  to  be  on  file  prior  to  the 
board.  The applicant's  contention that the "K" prefix was missing 
and has since been corrected in the personnel data system  (PDS) is 
noted.  The action to add the "K"  prefix was not initiated until 
16 October  1997, well  after  the  board  convening  date.  Based  on 
the evidence provided, they recommended denial of the request. 
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies  of  the  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on 
15 March  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 
law or regulations. 

remedies provided by  existing 

2.  The application was timely filed 

-

8

 

2 

AFBCMR 97-03489 

3.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable  error or  injustice.  After 
reviewing the evidence submitted, a majority of the Board was not 
persuaded that relief should be granted.  His contentions are duly 
noted.  However, we  do not  find these uncorroborated assertions, 
in  and  by  themselves,  sufficiently  persuasive  to  override  the 
rationale provided by the Air Force.  Therefore, a majority of the 
Board  agrees with  the  recommendation of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt 
the  rational expressed  as the  basis  for our  conclusion that  the 
applicant  failed  to  sustain  his  burden  of  establishing  the 
existence of either an error or an injustice warranting  favorable 
action on this request. 

t 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: 
A  majority  of  the  panel  finds insufficient evidence 'of error  or 
injustice and recommends the application be denied. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session  on  11  June  1998,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Robert W.  Zook, Member 
Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member 
Mrs. Kay Byrne, Examiner  (without vote) 

By  a majority vote,  the members  voted  to deny  the  request.  Ms. 
Crerar voted to correct the record and did not desire to submit a 
minority  report. 
The  following  documentary  evidence  was 
considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 18 Nov  97 with atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 5 Feb 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 18 Feb 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Mar 98. 

THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ 
Panel Chair 

3 

AFBCMR 97-03489 

\ 

I, ; 

. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

OfFice of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03489 

3UL  1 7  1998 

I 

MEMORANDVM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD 
FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR) 

' 

I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the iecommendation of the Board 

members.  A majority found that applicant had not provided substantial evidence of error or 
injustice and recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their conclusion that 
relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their recommendation that the application be denied. 

Please advise the applicant accordingly. 

Air Force Review Boards Agency 

DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE P E R S O N N E L  CENTER 

RANDOLPH  AIR  FORCE BASE TEXAS 

- 

550 C Street West Ste 07 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-4709 

MEMORANDUM FOR SAF/MIBR 
AFBCMR 

FROM:  AFPCDPPPEB 

SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Records - 

Requested Action:  The applicant is requesting his Officer Performance Report (OPR), 
dated 7 Jul97, be included in his military records for a supplemental selection board for 
the P0597C Central Selection Board (CSB). 

Basis of Request:  Applicant contends his 7 Jd 97 was not included in his d i t a r y  
records for the P0597C CSB. 

Facts:  The applicant received a “Promote” recommendation on his CY97 Promotion 
Recommendation and was non-selected for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel. 

Discussion:  We will only address the technical aspects of this case as they relate to the 
OPR.  Prior to the CSB, the applicant had only 40 days of supervision underneath the 
new rater.  The minimum required amount of time for a report is 60 days.  The applicant 
does not provide enough supporting evidence to ascertain the actual days when 
supervision should have begun and that the amount of time was sufficient to warrant an 
OPR. 

It appears the member had a rater change, effective 1 Apr 97, and at that time, the rater 
did not have enough supervision (120 days) to write an OPR.  Then, on 8 Jul97, the 
applicant had a separate change of reporting official, thus causing an OPR with a close- 
out date of 7 Jul97 as an annual report versus a 120 day annual closing out 29 Jul97. 

Since the officer was In-the-Zone for promotion, a report at this time was not required for 
the CSB as it wouId have been for an Above-the-Zone officer. 

Recommendation:  The applicant does not provide a step-by-step breakdown of when 
actual supervision may have begun underneath any of his raters.  Without this 
information, we cannot determine whether or not the appropriate number of days required 
for an OPR were actually met.  Closing out a report, when it is not warranted, to meet a 

9703489 
. . . . . . . . . . . . 

.I 

CSB is not a valid reason, especially since the report was not required for the CSB. 
Recommend denial of the applicant’s request. 

Asst. Chief, Evaluations Procedures Section 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt. 

9703489 
. . . . . - . . -. . 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH  AIR  FORCE B A S E  TEXAS 

FEB  1 8  I998 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

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

Requested Action.  The applicant requests reconsideration by the CY97C (21 Jul97) 

lieutenant colonel board (P0597C). 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends his 7 Jul97 officer performance report (OPR) 
was not fded in time to be considered by the P0597C board.  In addition, he contends a “IC’ 
prefix was missing from his duty Air Force specialty code (DAFSC) at the time of the board, and 
has since been corrected. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timely filed, Application under AFI 36-2401, Correcting 

Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, would not have been appropriate. 

b.  The applicant has one nonselection by the P0597C board. 
c.  The governing directives are AFI 36-250 1, Officer Promotions and Selective 

Continuation, 1 Mar 96, and AFI 36-2402, Officer Evaluation System, 1 Jul96. 

d.  The applicant contends his 7 Jul97 OPR should have been on file for the P0597C 

board. 

e.  HQ AFPCDPPPEB provided a technical advisory, dated 5 Feb 98, in which they 
conclude that since the applicant was in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) for the P0597C board, an OPR 
was not required for the board.  We concur with their assessment and add the following for the 
AFBCMR’s consideration. 

f.  AFI 36-2402, paragraph 3.6.4.3, states OPRs on active duty officers are due for 
file at HQ AFPC no later than 60 days after the closeout date.  Therefore, the OPR would not 
have been due for file until 7 Sep 97.  As such, it was not required to be on file prior to the board. 

g.  The applicant contends a “K” prefix was missing fiom his DAFSC at the time of 

the board and has since been corrected in the personnel data system (PDS).  As support, the 
applicant provided a copy of the ClassificatiodOn-the-Job Training Actions.  We note the 
requested action to add the “IC’ prefix was not even initiated until 16 Oct 97-well  after the 
board convening date-with  an effective date of 3 Jul97.  If the AFBCMR decides in favor of 
the applicant on the above issue, .then the officer seleotion brief (OSB) used for the special 
selection board (SSB) can reflect the duty history entry of 3 Jul97 (includes X“ prefur DAFSC). 
However, we do not support promotion reconsideration on this issue alone. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, we recommend denial. 

n 

Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

AF