AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

OCT  9 1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET "MBER:  97-03769 

COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

She be given consideration for promotion to the grade of major by 
Special Selection Board  (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1997A (CY97A) 
Medical  Service  Corps  (MSC)  Major  Board  with  the  following 
documents  in  her  record: 
( 1)  the  Officer  Performance  Report 
(OPR) closing 25 November 1996,  (2) an amended Officer Selection 
Brief  (OSB) with  a  duty  title  of  !!Chief, Operations  Officer" 
effective  2  December  1996, and  ( 3 )   a  reaccomplished  Promotion 
Recommendat ion Form  ( PRF) . 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The OPR  was not processed in a  timely manner and  therefore the 
selection  board  did  not  have  access  to  her  most  current 
performance. The OSB was not updated to reflect her current duty 
title of  "Chief , Operations. 
In support she provides, in part, an Email from the rater dated 
24 November  1996  informing  her  of  her  new  duty  title,  a 
reaccomplished PRF, and an OPR closing 25 July 1997 with a duty 
title of "Chief, Operations. 

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  (DOR: 20 Mar 98) and assigned to Ramstein, Germany 
as the Chief, Plans &  Programs Division. 
She was considered but not selected by the CY97A MSC Major Board, 
which convened on 3 February 1997.  The top OPR reviewed by  the 
board  closed  out  on  2 May  1996  and  reflected  a  duty  title  of 
"Chief, Managed Care Network." The PRF reviewed by the selection 
board  reflected  the  duty  title  of  "Aeromedical  Evacuation 
Operations Officer  (AEOO)/Security Manager"  (the same  title  as 
the 25 November  1996 OPR) ,  and  so did  the applicant's OSB. The 
overall 
The 

recommendation 

promot ion 

was 

I'Promote. 'I 

reaccomplished PRF reflects a duty title of  "Chief, Operationsll 
and the job description has been changed; everything else remains 
the same. 

The OPR  closing 25 was  not  signed by  the  rater and  additional 
rater until 2 May 1997, and by the reviewer until 5  May 1997. It 
was filed in applicant's records on 22 May 1997. 
The  Personnel Data System  (PDS) currently includes a duty  tile 
entry of "Chief, Operations," effective 2 December 1996. 
Two similar appeals filed under AFI 36-2401 were returned by the 
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board  (ERAB) without action on 30 June 
and 8 October 1997. 
She was  considered and  selected for promotion  to  the  grade of 
major  by  the  CY97E MSC  Major  Board, which  convened  5  November 
1997. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief, Reports  &  Queries Team, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, reviewed the 
appeal and indicates that applicant submitted an OPR to validate 
her  request  for  the  2  December  1996  entry  as  "Chief  of 
Operations." 
The  author  concurs  with  the  applicant  and  has 
updated her duty history to reflect the new duty entry. 

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief, Appeals  &  SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, also evaluated 
the case and would have no objection to the applicant meeting an 
SSB  with  the  25  November  1996  OPR  in  her  records  and  the 
requested duty title change made to the CY97A OSB.  However, the 
author  does  not  agree  that  the  duty  title  on  the  PRF  was 
erroneous.  The applicant provides a  letter of  support from an 
individual outside the rating chain of the contested report, but 
has  failed  to  provide  any  evidentiary support  from  the  senior 
rater of the PRF or a letter of concurrence from the president of 
the  Management  Level  Review  Board  (MLRB) to  substantiate  her 
contention  that  the  duty  title  on  the  PRF  was  erroneous. 
Further, a  statement  from  the  military  personnel  flight  (MPF) 
chief explaining the series of  conflicting updates is necessary 
to determine which duty title is appropriate on the applicant's 
CY97A PRF. Since the PRF was written before her 25 November 1996 
OPR  closed  out,  the  duty  title  ltAEOO1l  was  used  on  her  PRF. 
Therefore, the author concludes the duty title as it appears on 
the  contested PRF  is accurate. The  applicant fails to  indicate 
what,  if  any,  measures  she  took  prior  to  the  CY97A  board  to 
update her duty title and have the PRF corrected if, in fact, the 
duty title and duty description were erroneous. 

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Air Wing, who was the senior rater of 
The commander of  the 
the  PRF,  provides  a  supporting  statement  indicating  that  the 
numerous  transactions 
[changing  applicant's  duty  title] 
erroneously occurred due  to  lack  of  communications between  her 
orderly room and the MPF Manning Control element. When the change 
to applicant I s   duty title was corrected, both units attempted to 
complete the update; however, the data was entered with different 
effective dates. Additional transactions to correct this had  to 
be  accomplished.  The  commander  asserts  that  the  applicant's 
correct  duty  title was  Chief, Operations, effective 2  December 
1997 [sic].  He adds that once he discovered the applicant's duty 
title was incorrect on her original PRF, he issued her a new one 
with  the  corrected  duty  title  (See Exhibit  A ) .  
He  provides 
additional justification for correcting the duty title, and other 
pertinent supporting documents. 

The  commander's  complete  statement,  with  attachments,  is  at 
Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
law or regulations. 

The application was timely filed. 

2 .  
3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence  of  probable  error  o r   injustice  to 
warrant granting the relief requested. The Air Force opined that 
the  25  November  1996  OPR  should  have  been  included  in  the 
applicant's records when the CY97A board convened and her OSB for 
that  board  should have  had  a  duty  title  of  "Chief, Operations 
Officer,'I effective 2 December  1996. The Air  Force  recommended 
that  the  applicant  be  given  SSB  consideration  with  these 
corrections to her records, but  did not believe that the PRF in 
question should be reaccomplished. We agree with the Air Force's 
recommendations  regarding  the  OPR  and  the  OSB,  but  we  also 
believe  that  the  contested  PRF  should  be  replaced  with  the 
reaccomplished  PRF  provided.  In  this  regard,  we  examined  the 
explanation  provided  by  the  senior  rater  in  his  supporting 
documents  and  concluded  that  the  duty  title  on  the  PRF  in 
question is erroneous. It appears that the PRF should have had a 
duty  title  of  "Chief ,  Operations,  with  a  corresponding  job 
description. Therefore, we  recommend the applicant be given SSB 
consideration  with  her  records  corrected  as  requested.  In 
addition, we note that 25 November 1996 OPR was signed long after 

3 

97-03769 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTER8 AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ MPC/DPAIS 1 

550 C Street West, Suite 32 
Randolph AFB, TX 78 150-4734 

SUBJECT:  Application for Correction of Military Records (DD Form 149) 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests a correction to her duty history.  She also requests 

Special Selection Board consideration if the correction is made. 

Reason for Request.  Applicant requests a duty entry  be added to read “Chief of Operations 

86‘” Aeromedical Evacuation ” effective 2 Dec 96. 

Discussion.  Applicant submitted an OPR to validate her request for the 2 Dec 96 entry as 

“Chief of Operations.”  This OPR coincides with the OPR’s on file in member’s Selection 
Folder.  We concur with member and updated her duty history to reflect new duty entry. 

Recommendation. Defer to HQ AFPC/DPPPAJ3. 

Case Forwarded To,  Application has been forwarded to HQ AFPCDPPPAB. 

Point of Contact.  SrA Morris, DPAIS1, ext 7-4453. 

Directorate of Assignments 

9703769 
- . . . . . . . - 

c  -4, 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BASE TEXAS 

1 0  FEB 1998 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM: HQ AFPCDPPPA 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-471 0 

Requested Action.  The applicant, a medical service corps officer, requests special selection 

board (SSB) consideration for the CY97A (3 Feb 97) (P0497A) major board, With inclusion of 
the officer performance report (OPR) that dosed out 25 Nov 96; a new officer selection brief 
(OSB) with the duty title “Chief, Operations Officer” effective 26 Nov 96; and a corrected 
promotion recommendation form (PW). 

Basis for Request.  The applicant believes she was nonselected to the grade of major by the 
P0497A board because the 25 Nov 96 OPR was missing from her officer selection record (OSR), 
and her most recent duty title was missing on both her OSB and PRF. 

Recommendation.  See below. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timeIy.  The applicant submitted two similar requests under 

AFT-36-240 1 , Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which were denied by the 
Evaluation Report Appeal Board (ERAB).  A copy of the letters announcing the E m ’ s  
decisions, dated 30 Jun 97 and 8 Oct 97, are included in the applicant’s appeal package 

b.  The governing directive is AFI-36-2402, Officer Evaluation System, 1 Jul 

96. 

c.  In support of her appeal, the applicant submits a copy of two OPRs; copy of 
the P0497A OSB; e-mail excerpt; copy of a memorandum for record from outside the rating 
cham; copy of her P0497A PRF; copy of the proposed P0497A PRF; copy of ERAB decision 
letters; and copy of a Staff Summary Sheet (SSS). 

d.  The applicant contends her OPR was not filed in her OSR when it met the 
P0497A board 7 Feb 97.  We agree.  M I  36-2402, paragraph 3.6.4.3 states in part, “OPRs on 
Extended Active Duty (EAD) officers are due to HQ AFPCDPPB W... no later than 60 days 
after closeout.’’  In this instance, the OPR was not filed until 22 May 97.  We, therefore, 

9703769 
. . . . . . . . . . . 

would have no objection to the applicant meeting an SSB with inclusion of the 25 Nov 96 
OPR in her OSR. 

e.  We agree with the advisory opinion rendered by HQ AFPCDPAISl in 

regard to the applicant’s most recent duty title, “Chief, Operations Officer,” missing from her 
OSB.  As they point out, the applicant provided an OPR to validate her request for the 2 Dec 96 
entry.  We, therefore, would not object to the applicant receiving SSB consideration with a 
corrected OSB. 

f.  The applicant contends the duty title on her PRF was erroneous.  We do not 

agree.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it becomes a 
matter of record.  It takes substantial evidence to the contrary to have a report changed or voided. 
To effectively chalIenge a PRF, it is important to hear fiom all the evaluators on the contested 
report--not only for support, but for clarificatiodexplanation. The applicant has provided a letter 
of support fkom an individual fiom outside the rating chain of the contested report who states, “ ... 
(the applicant) was an AEOO (Aeromedical Evacuation Operations Officer) when the report was 
written and the decision to keep the duty title originally submitted was believed to be the correct 
answer.”  In addition, the applicant fdled to provide any evidentiary support from the senior rater 
of the P0497A PRF, or a letter of concurrence from the president of the Management Level 
Review (MLR) Board to substantiate her contention the duty title on the PRF was erroneous. 
Furthermore, as pointed out to the applicant’s Military Personnel Flight (MPF) Chief in the 
E m ’ s  decision letter dated 8 Oct 97, “there were eight separate transactions changing the 
applicant’s duty title, six of which involved the same effective date (6 Jun 96).  One entry, 
effective 2 Dec 96, was added in Jul97 and has subsequently been deleted.”  A statement from 
the MPF chief explaining the series of conflicting updates is necessary to determine which duty 
title is appropriate on the applicant’s P0497A PRF.  Since the PRF was written before her 
25 Nov 96 OPR closed out, the duty title AAEO was used on her PRF.  Therefore, we conclude 
the duty title as it appears on the contested PRF is accurate and the report was accomplished in 
direct accordance with Air Force policy in effect at the time it was rendered. 

* 

g.  The applicant fails to indicate what, if any, measures she took prior to the 
P0497A board to update her duty title and have the PRF corrected if, in fact, the duty title and 
duty description were erroneous. 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendations are appropriate. 

MARIANNE  STER~ING, Lt coil USAF 
Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

OCT  9 1998 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 97-03769 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction 

of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A 
Stat 1 16), it is directed that: 

tary records of the Department of the Air Force relating t 
corrected to show that: 

a.  The signature dates for the rater in Section VI, the additional rater in Section VII, and 

the reviewer in Section VI11 for the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 25 November 
1996 be changed to “26 November 1996.” 

b.  The Assignment History of the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the 

Calendar Year 1997A (CY97A) Medical Service Corps (MSC) Major Board be amended by 
adding a duty title of “Chief, Operations Officer,” effective 2 December 1996. 

c.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the CY97A board be, and 

hereby is, declared void and replaced with the reaccomplished PRF provided, reflecting a duty 
title of “Chief, Operations.” 

It is further directed that her records, as amended, be considered for promotion to the grade 

of major by Special Selection Board for the CY97A MSC Major Board. 

@- Director 

Attachment: 
Reaccomplished CY97A PRF 

I/  Air Force Review Boards Agency 

c 

I i 

I 
I 
! 

PROMOTIOW RECOMMENDATIOI 

I 

OEFlNlTELY PROMOTE 

DO NOT PROMOTE THIS BOARD 

Provide the  officer a copy of fhis report  approximately 30 days prior to the board for which this report is prepared.