DOCKET NUMBER:  97-03562 3 COUNSEL:  None - 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

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  Years  1994A 
(CY94A) /  1995B  (CY95B), and  1997B  (CY97B) Lieutenant  Colonel 
Selection Boards. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
His  officer preselection brief  contained  erroneous  information 
regarding his duty title history.  Specifically, the duty title 
history  stated  he  had  been  demoted  from  Deputy  Staff  Judge 
Advocate  to  Chief  of  Preventive  Law  and  Legal  Assistance, and 
then to Assistant Staff Judge Advocate.  He had not been demoted 
and was performing the duties set out in his Officer Performance 
Report  (OPR) covering that period. 
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. 
Applicant was considered and nonselected by the CY93A and CY94A 
Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Boards,  as  a  below-the-zone 
candidate.  He has  three promotion nonselections by  the  CY95B, 
CY97B, and CY97E Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards. 
HQ  AFPC/DPPPA  states  the  applicant's  duty  history  has  been 
corrected  as  follows:  1 February  1990, Ch, Prev  Law  and  Legal 
Assistant, and 21 May  1990, Assistant  Staff Judge Advocate, has 
been  deleted. 
The  5 June  1989  entry,  Deputy  Staff  Judge 

. .   . 

.L 

97-03562 

Advocate, has been changed to Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, as 
reflected on applicantis OPR for the period 29 May  1989 through 
28  May  1990.  The  5  July  1990  duty  Air  Force  Specialty  Code 
(DAFSC) has also been changed from 8816 to 8811 to coincide with 
the OPR on file. 
OPR profile since 1990, follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

28 May 90 
28 May 91 
28 May 92 
28 May 93 
# 
28 May 94 
## 
###  28 May 95 
####  28 May 96 
#####28 May 97 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

#  Top report at time of CY93A board. 
##  Top report at time of CY94A board. 
###  Top report at time of CY95B board. 
####  Top report at time of CY97B board. 
#####  Top report at time of CY97E board. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief , Reports and Queries Team, Directorate of Assignments, 
AFPC/DPAISl, reviewed the application and states that between the 
August  1997  Pre-Selection Brief  and  October  1997,  an  unknown 
source has deleted the 1 February 1990 and 21 May  1990 entries. 
The  1  February  1990  entry  was  not  supported  by  any  source 
document  on  file; therefore, they concur with  member's request 
for deletion.  The 21 May  1990 entry is a different story.  The 
duty title  IIAssistant  Staff Judge Advocateii  coincided with  the 
OPR closing 28 May 1990 and they would not have deleted it.  Now 
they are left with a 5 June 1989 entry as the iiDeputy Staff Judge 
Advocateii  which doesnl t  coincide with the OPR; hence, this duty 
title is now in error.  Based on the source document they have, 
they  are  changing  the  5  June  1989  duty  title  to  reflect 
iiAssistant Staff  Judge  Advocate. 
They  also  have  changed 
memberis 5 July 1990 DAFSC as reads ii8816ii to ii8811i1 to coincide 
with the OPR on file.  They defer to HQ AFPC/DPPPAB. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 
The Acting  Chief, Appeals  and  SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed 
the application and states that the OPB is sent to each eligible 
officer  several  months  prior  to  a  selection  board.  The  OPB 
contains data  that  will  appear on  the  officer  selection brief 
(OSB) at the central board.  Written instructions attached to the 

2 

t 

- 

97-03562 

OPB and given to the officer before the central selection board 
specifically instructs him/her 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.  They retrieved the OSBs reviewed by  all of the boards that 
have considered the applicant for promotion to lieutenant colonel 
-  the  earliest  of  which  was  the  CY93A  board.  They  noted  the 
5 June 1989 duty history indicated an incorrect duty title.  The 
CY94A, CY95B, and CY97B OSBs not only show the two 1990 entries, 
but  the  incorrect duty title on the 5 June 1989 entry as well. 
The CY97E OSB reflects one 1990 duty history entry; however, the 
DAFSC is incorrect.  In addition, the 5 June 1989 entry reflects 
an incorrect duty title.  The applicant contends he was not aware 
the duty titles could be changed until August 1997.  The letter 
forwarding each eligible officer their OPB  specifically outlines 
each  entry  on  the  OPB  and  OSB  and  the  appropriate  offices of 
responsibility  to  contact  to  have  this  information  corrected. 
The applicant has not demonstrated he made any attempt before now 
to have this information corrected.  They are not convinced the 
applicant  was unaware  of  the discrepancies in his  duty history 
prior  to  the  CY97E  board.  While  it  may  be  argued  that  the 
contested  duty  history  discrepancies  were  factors  in  the 
applicant's nonselection, there  is no clear evidence  that  they 
negatively  impacted his  promotion  opportunity.  Central boards 
evaluate the entire officer selection record  (OSR) (including the 
promotion  recommendation  form,  OPRs,  officer  effectiveness 
reports, training  reports, letters  of  evaluation,  decorations, 
and O S B ) ,   assessing whole person factors such as job performance, 
professional  qualities,  depth  and  breadth  of  experience, 
leadership,  and  academic  and  professional  military  education. 
They are not convinced these discrepancies were the cause of the 
applicant's nonselection  -  particularly  since his  O P R s   for the 
time  period  reflected  the  correct  duty  information,  and  the 
boards took this into consideration when his record was reviewed 
for promotion.  Each officer eligible for promotion consideration 
is  advised  of  the  entitlement  to  communicate  with  the  board 
president.  The applicant  could have used  this means  tp  inform 
the board presidents of the duty history discrepancies.  However, 
they have  verified  the  applicant  elected  not  to  exercise  this 
entitlement for any of the boards for which he was considered - 
up to and including the CY97E board which has yet to be released. 
Therefore, they recommend denial of applicant's request. 
A  complete  copy  of  the  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant on  9  February  1998,  for review and  response.  As  of 
this date, no response has been received by this office. 

3 

- 

97-03562 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The  applicant  has  exhausted  all  remedies  provided  by 
existing law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
3 .  
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice 
warranting  applicant's  consideration for promotion to the grade 
of  lieutenant  colonel  by  SSB  for  the  CY94A,  CY95B,  and  CY97B 
selection boards.  The  applicant's  duty history on his officer 
selection briefs  (OSBs) have been corrected.  Therefore, the only 
issue  to  be  considered  by  this  Board,  is  whether  or  not  his 
records,  to  include  corrected  OSBs,  should  be  considered  for 
It  should  be  noted  that  every  officer 
promotion  by  S S B s .  
receives  an  Officer  Preselection Brief  (OPB) before  meeting  a 
promotion  board.  The  OPB  reflects  the  information  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  instructs  him/her  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. 
Based  on  the  documentation 
submitted  with  this  appeal,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the 
applicant  took timely action  to  correct the errors on his OPB. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no 
basis  upon  which  to  recommend  favorable  action  on  this 
application. 

THE BOARD DETE RMINES THAT : 
The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  material  ekror  or 
injustice; that  t h e   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 29 October 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603 : 

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Loren S.  Perlstein, Member 
Mr. Terry A.  Yonkers, Member 
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner  (without vote) 

4 

c 

97-03562 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 24 Nov 97, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAISl, dated 29 Dec  97. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 22 Jan 98. 
Exhibit E. AFBCMR, dated 9 Feb 98. 

rJawI*(fi 

VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ 
Panel Chair 

5