F  . 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUL  1 4  

IN THE MATTER OF: 

rn   COUNSEL:  NONE 

DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03526 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

Applicant requests that the Officer Selection Brief reviewed by the 
Calendar Year  (CY) 1997C  (16 June  1997) Major  Promotion Board  be 
amended  under  the Assignment  History  section to  reflect  Duty Air 
Force Specialty Code  (DAFSC) 36P4 versus  3384 on the  15 May  1996 
entry,  and  that  she  be  considered  for  promotion  by  Special 
Selection Board  for the CY97C Major  Promotion Board.  Applicant's 
submission is at Exhibit A. 

The appropriate Air Force off ices evaluated applicant s  request and 
provided  advisory  opinions  to  the  Board  recommending  the 
application  be  denied  (Exhibit C). 
The  advisory  opinions  were 
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).  As 
of this date, no response has been received by this office. 

After  careful  consideration  of  applicant's  request  and  the 
available  evidence  of  record,  we  find  insufficient  evidence  of 
error  or  injustice  to  warrant  corrective action.  The  facts  and 
opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be based 'dn the 
evidence of record and have not been rebutted by applicant.  Absent 
persuasive evidence applicant was denied rights to which entitled, 
appropriate regulations were not followed, or appropriate standards 
were not applied, we find no basis to disturb the existing record. 

Accordingly, applicant's request is denied. 

The Board staff  is directed to  inform applicant of  this decision. 
Applicant  should also be  informed that  this decision is final and 
will  only  be  reconsidered  upon  the  presentation  of  new  relevant 
evidence  which  was  not  reasonably  available  at  the  time  the 
application was filed. 

Members  of  the  Board,  Messrs.  Thomas  S.  Markiewicz,  Jackson  A. 
Hauslein,  and  Michael  P. Higgins, considered  this  application  on 
9 July  1998  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  Air  Force 
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552. 

THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ 
Panel Chair 

Exhibits : 
A.  Applicant's DD Form 149 
B.  Available Master Personnel Records 
C.  Advisory Opinions 
D.  SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions 

y----' 'rT 

h - - - - . - d '  

c 

4' 

DEPARTMENT  OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE  PERSONNEL CENTER 

R A N D O L P H  AIR  FORCE  B A S E  TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPAIS 1 

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

SUBJECT: 

(DD Form 149) 

Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting a duty history entry change to reflect 
correct DAFSC.  We will be addressing her duty history only.  She further requests special. 
selection board consideration if any or all of the copxtions are made.  . 

Reason for Request.  The applicant believes that her DAFSC should be 36P4, not 33S4 

fiom  May  1996. 

Discussion.  Based on OPRs submitted and those contained in the officer’s records, the 

DAFSC has been correctedtby the MPF.  We concur with the their corrections. 

Case Forwarded To.  Application has k n  forwaded to AFPCDPPPAB. 

Point of Contact.  SrA  Moms, DPAIS 1 , ext 7-4453. 

Chief, Reports and Queries Team 
Directorate of Assignments 

DEPARTMENT OF T H E  AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AiR  FORCE PERSONNELCENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

15 JAN 98 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

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

Requested Action.  The applicant requests promotion reconsideration by the CY97C 

(1 6 Jun 97) major promotion board (P0497C). 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends the last (latest) entry on the officer selection 

brief (OSB), should reflect a duty Air Force specialty code (DAFSC) of 36P4. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  Application is timely filed.  Appfication under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer 

and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, would not have been appropriate. 

‘ 

b.  The governing directive is AFI 36-2501, Offrcer Promotions and Selective 

Continuation, 1 Mar96. 

C.  The applicant has one nonselection by the P0497C board. 
d.  The applicant contends her DAFSC should read 36P4 on the OSB that was 

reviewed by the board. She states that during the communications-iation management 
career fields merger, the position was to be redesignated for a comunications officer (33 S4). 
However, the DAFSC on the position was “caught” while an officer performance report (OPR) 
and promotion recommendation form (PRF) were being prepared.  The applicant’s military 
personnel flight (MPF) corrected the applicant’s DAFSC to reflect 36P4 on 4 Nov 97-well  after 
the board.  We note the DAFSC currently reflected in the personnel data system (PDS) is 36P4 
for the 15 May 96 duty history entry. 

e.  HQ AFPCLDPAIS 1 provided a technical advisory, undated, which indicates their 

concurrence with the MPF’s corrective actions based on the applicant’s 21 Apr 97 OPR. 

f.  We note the contested DAFSC is dated 15 May 96nearly two years ago.  We 

wonder where the appiicant’s responsibility lies in this matter.  As such, the officer preselection 

t 

c ”  I 

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 him/her 
to carefully examine the brief for compIeteness and accuracy.  If any errors are found, hdshe 
must take corrective action prior to the selection board, not after it.  The instructions specifically 
state,  “Uflcers  will nut be considered by a Specid Selection Board if, in azrcisirtg reasonable 
diligence, the officer should have discovered ihe error or omission in h M e t  recorak and 
could have taken timely corrective action” (emphasis added).  We see no evidence that the 
applicant attempted to get the duty history information corrected in the PDS when she received 
the OPB. 

g.  We note the appropriate DAFSC was reflected on the applicant’s most recent OPR 
(21 Apr 97) and the PRF reviewed by the board. Even though it was not reflected on the OSB, 
the fact remains that the new DAFSC was in evidence before the board, and it was taken into 
consideration when her record was r e v z e d  for promotion. 

h.  Each officer eligible €or promotion consideration is advised of the entitlement to 
communicate with the board president.  The applicant could have used this means to inform the 
board president of the DAFSC. However, we have verified the applicant elected not to exercise 
this entitlement. 

t 

i.  While it may be argued that the contested DAFSC was a factor in the applicant’s 
nonselection, there is no clear evidence that it negatively impacted her promotion opportunity. 
Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record (OSR) (including the PFW, OPRs, 
officer effectiveness reports, training reports, letters of evaluation, decorations, and officer 
selection brief), assessing whole person factors such as job pez5omance, professional qualities, 
depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic and professional military education. 
We are not convinced the contested DAFSC was the sole cause of the applicant’s nonselection. 

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

W l & i  

MARIANNE STERLING, Lt Co  USAF 
Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Pers Program Mgt