AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

JD 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00088 FEB  yi3gg 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REUUESTS THAT: 
1.  His Officer Selection Brief  (OSB) ,  reviewed by  the Calendar 
Year 1997C (CY97C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be 
corrected in the following areas: 
a.  Aeronautical/flying data. 
b.  Duty history. 
c.  Education. 
d.  Decoration information. 

=i' 

2.  He  be  considered  for promotion  to  the  grade  of  1ieut:nant 
colonel by  special selection board  (SSB) for the  CY97C Central 
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  flying history submitted as evidence  includes approximately 
20-30  hours. 
The  rrMrr prefix  associated  with  evaluator 
qualification was not included on his Assignment History for the 
period 11 Feb 92 and 2 Oct 92.  Education should reflect Florida 
State University, not the University of Florida.  The Air Force 
Achievement  Medal  First Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (AFAM 1OLC) citation, 
dated 15 February 1996, was missing. 
His  officer  selection  brief  (OSB) arrived  just  prior  to  his 
permanent  change  of  station  (PCS) . 
His  performance 
recommendation form  (PRF) rating was not received until after he 
PCS'd.  Errors  in  flying  times, weapon  system  qualifications, 
examiner Air Force Specialty Codes  (AFSCs) and colleges attended 
were verbally briefed to Military Personnel Flight  (MPF) at the 
time  of  his  out  processing  from  Scott  Air  Force  Base.  His 
Achievement  Medal  was  in  his  records  at  the  time  he  departed 
Scott;  however,  the  MPF  was  in  the  process  of  placing  his 
Meritorious  Service  Medal  (MSM) into  his  records.  Applicant 
states his  personnel  records were  left  with  the  375th MPF  for 
corrections  and  inclusion  of  the  missing  data.  He  feels  the 

exclusion of the Achievement Medal and incorrect data are due to 
a lack of  concern and poor effort on the part  of  not  just  the 
375th MPF  but  those  of  the  Air  Force  across  the  board,  and 
directly resulted in his non-selection to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel. 
In support of his appeal, applicant submits a letter, a copy of 
the CY97C OSB, flying history, Officer Performance Report  (OPR) I 
for the period  closing  12 Jul  1993, a Board Discrepancy Report 
for the AFAM  lOLC reviewed by  the CY97C promotion board  and, a 
copy of the citation for the AFAM 1OLC. 
Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Reserve of the 
Air Force on 16 February 1982. 
Applicant  was  considered,  but  not  selected,  by  the  CY97C 
Lieutenant  Colonel  Central  Selection  Board  which  convened  on 
21 July 1997. 
Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  is  as 
follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

27 Nov 92 
12 Jul 93 
2 Mar 94 
2 Mar 95 
2 Mar 96 
#  2 Mar 97 
2 Mar 98 

OVERALL  EVALUATION 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

#  Top report at time of non-selection to the grade of Lieutenant 

Colonel by the CY97C Central Lieutenant Colonel Board 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief, Reports and Queries Team, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, states that 
the applicant has a duty entry, dated 24 Dec 92 with a Duty Air 
Force  Specialty  Code  (DAFSC)  of  IIQ11A3S. 
This  entry  was 
originally updated  as  an  llM1355BIl  in  July  1993;  however, was 
changed in October 1993 to I'QllA3S.''  [In October 1993, a portion 
of  the prefixes  and  duty  titles were  changed.  The  former  IIM1' 
prefix  had  a  duty  title  as  "Stand Board/Examiner."  This  was 
changed  to  a  'IQ" prefix  with  additional  duty  titles].  The 
applicant's OPR for the period of 28 Nov 92 -  12 Jul 93 reflects 

2 

the correct DAFSC as "M1355B."  Applicant's 24 Dec 92 duty entry 
has been updated to reflect the correct DAFSC. 
AFPC/DPAISl has updated a new entry effective 13  Jul  93  with a 
DAFSC of IIQllA3S"  to match the OPR for the period 1 3   July 1993 to 
2 March 1994.  This entry was not portrayed on the OSB. 
Research shows applicant's DAFSCs for 11 Feb 92 and 2 Oct 92 were 
recently changed.  The DAFSCs were altered by the addition of the 
MI'  prefix.  The OPR covering this period, 28 Nov 91 -  27 Nov  92, 
has a DAFSC as "1355B." The addition of this IIM" prefix does not 
coincide with source documents on file and has been deleted from 
the  applicant's  record. 
These  two  DAFSCs  were  accurately 
reflected on the OSB.  If applicant believes the omission of the 
IIM"  prefix  is  in  error,  he  should  be  referred  to  the  MPF 
Evaluations Office to provide proof that the OPR is incorrect and 
follow procedures to correct the OPR.  NOTE:  These respective 
duty titles were also changed; however, the change was to shorten 
the duty title while retaining the same meaning. 
Applicant's 1 Jan 95 and 1 Sep 96 DAFSC entries do not match the 
OPRs  closing  out  for  these  periods. 
In  both  cases,  the 
assignment history contains a DAFSC of  I1R11A4Y, I'  while the OPRs 
contain  a  DAFSC  of  '111A4Y.1t AFPC/DPAISl  has  deleted  the  I1Rl1 
prefix  to have  the assignment history coincide with  the  source 
documents on file.  If the applicant believes the omission of the 
trR1l prefix  is  in error, they  refer him  to  the  MPF  Evaluations 
Office, to provide proof  that  the OPR  is  incorrect and  follow 
procedures to correct the OPR. 
A  complete  copy  of  this  Air  Force  evaluation  is  attached  at 
Exhibit C. 

applicant  contends  that 

The  Chief,  Officer  Promotion  and  Appointment  Branch,  HQ 
AFPC/DPPPO,  states  that 
the 
aeronautical/flying  data  reflected  on  his  OSB  is  incorrect. 
Other than his statement, there is no evidence this information 
is  incorrect.  The  applicant  provided  a  memorandum  from  305 
OG/OGTM, dated  5 November  1997, which shows information current 
as of the date of the memorandum.  However, this memorandum does 
not  address what  information should have been  reflected at  the 
time of the 21 July 1997 promotion board.  Further, the applicant 
does  not  provide  information or  evidence  to  show  that  actions 
were taken prior to the board to correct aeronautical information 
on his OSB. 

With  regard  to  the  missing  citation  of  the  AFAM  loLC,  the 
applicant provided a copy of the Board Discrepancy Report, dated 
15 July 1997, requesting the citation from his servicing Military 
Personnel Flight  (MPF).  This discrepancy report was filed in the 
applicant's Officer Selection Record  (OSR).  There is no evidence 
that action was taken by the applicant's losing or gaining MPF, 
or by the applicant, to ensure the citation was filed in the OSR. 

3 

There  is  also  no  evidence  to  show  that  action  was  taken  to 
correct the school on his OSB.  Applicant states the ''University 
of Florida" is not correct. 
AFI  36-2501,  Officer  Promotions  and  Selective  Continuation, 
states that the eligible officer's responsibilities for promotion 
consideration  are  to  determine  eligibility  timing  for  various 
promotion  zone considerations; review his Officer  Pre-selection 
Brief  (OPB) for accuracy; review his  PRF and OPR  for accuracy; 
consider submitting a letter to the board; and, report any errors 
to  the  Military  Personnel  Flight  Promotions. 
These 
responsibilities  were  the  same  when  he  was  considered  for 
promotion to major and for his considerations below-the-promotion 
zone on the last two lieutenant colonel promotions boards.  The 
applicant  does  not  provide  any  evidence  or  information  to 
indicate he took action to review his OPB  for accuracy.  It  is 
the applicantls responsibility, regardless of PCS status, and not 
the MPF or the Air Force, to ensure his records are correct prior 
to the convening of the board. 
A review of the applicant's "9411 and 119611 OSBs indicate the same 
aircraft and the same academic education school were identical to 
the information listed on the 119711 OSB.  There is no evidence any 
effort was made by the applicant to correct his record or that he 
experienced unique  circumstances.  Granting  relief  will  afford 
him an unfair advantage over the many other officers who made the 
effort to ensure their records were complete and correct.  They 
recommend the application be denied. 
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is 
attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
Copies  of  the  Air  Force  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the 
applicant  on  18  March  1998  for  review and  response  within  30 
days.  As  of  this date, no response has been  received by  this 
off ice. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 
1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 
2.  The application was timely filed. 
3 .   Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
a  thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of  record  and  applicant's 
submission, we are not persuaded that hisofficer Selection Brief 

4 

(OSB),  reviewed  by  the  Calendar  Year  1997C  (CY97C)  Central 
Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board,  should  be  corrected  with 
regard  to  the  Aeronautical/Flying  Data;  Assignment  History; 
Academic  Education; or, Decorations, as  the  applicant  requests 
and, that he should be considered for promotion to the grade of 
lieutenant  colonel  by  a  special  selection  board  (SSB).  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. 
On reaching these conclusions, we considered the following: 

a.  With  regard  to  the  applicant's request  to  correct  the 
Aeronautical/Flying  Data  on  the  OSB,  we  note,  as  stated  by 
AFPC/DPPPO,  there  is  no  evidence  other  than  the  applicant I s 
statement  to  show  that  this  information  is  incorrect  or  that 
actions were taken prior to the board to correct the aeronautical 
information on his OSB.  Applicant submits no evidence that the 
flying  data  was  incorrect  other  than  the  5  November  1997 
memorandum that shows the current information; however, it does 
not  address what  information should have been  reflected at  the 
time of the promotion board. 

b.  Regarding applicant's request to add  the  IIM"  prefix  to 
his  assignment  history  for  the  period  11  February  1992  and 
2 October 1992, we agree with AFPC/DPAISi that the  V 3 5 5 B t 1  duty 
AFSCs were accurately reflected on the OSB that met the promotion 
board.  We are also not persuaded that the other changes to the 
applicant's duty AFSCs made  by  AFPC/DPAISl would  have made  the 
applicant a  selectee.  It  appears that  the Officer  Performance 
Reports  (OPRs)  reflected  the  correct  duty  AFSCs  which  the 
promotion board reviewed. 

c.  The applicant is contending that the school listed on the 
OSB,  University  of  Florida,  is  incorrect  and  should  reflect 
Florida State University.  It appears that the applicant has had 
previous promotion board considerations which indicated the same 
academic education  information on the OSBs  and  is identical to 
the CY97C OSB.  The applicant submits no evidence that he  took 
action to correct this information prior to the convening of the 
promotion board. 

d.  With regard to applicant's request to correct his Officer 
Selection Record  (OSR) by adding the citation for the Air Force 
Achievement  Medal  First  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (AFAM loLC), we  note 
that the award was reflected on the OSB  that met  the promotion 
board.  We  also  note  that  a  Board  Discrepancy  Report, dated 
15 July 1997, was filed in his OSR to indicate the citation was 
missing.  Therefore, the promotion board members were  aware of 
the award.  After  reviewing the  evidence of  record, we  are  in 
agreement with  the comments of  the Air  Force.  In view  of  the 
above, we are compelled to conclude that the missing citation was 
a harmless error.  We therefore agree with the recommendations of 
the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for 
our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden 

5 

that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, 
we  find  no  compelling basis  to  recommend  granting  the  relief 
sought. 

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 3 December 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603. 

Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair 
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member 
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 2 Jan 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Officer Selection Folder. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, dated 17 Feb 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 8 Mar 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Mar 98. 

BARBARA A. WESTGAT 
Panel Chair 

U 

6