AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00134 
COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

FEE3 

5 1999 

APPLICANT REDUESTS THAT: 
He be  reconsidered for in-residence Intermediate Service School 
(ISS) /Air Command and Staff College  (ACSC) . 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

A  Defense  Meritorious  Service  Medal  (DMSM),  an  Air  Force 
Commendation Medal  Second  Oak  Leaf  Cluster  (AFCM 20LC) and  an 
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal  (AFEM) were not reflected in his 
records prior  to  the  Air  Command  and  Staff  College  Selection 
Board.  Applicant  believes  this  impacted his  non-selection  for 
ISS/ACSC. 
In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  submits  certificates, 
citations and orders for the DMSM and AFCM  20LC; a copy of  the 
AFEM  citation and copies of extractions from the Personnel Data 
System  (PDS); and, copies of congratulatory letters. 
Applicant's submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Applicant  is  currently  serving on  extended  active duty  in  the 
grade of major. 
Available documentation reflects that at the time of applicant's 
selection for promotion to the grade of major, in August 1995, he 
was  also  a  candidate  for  Intermediate  Service  School  (ISS) . 
Applicant  was  considered  for  in-residence  ISS by  the  Academic 
Year  (AY) 1998  (10 November 1997) ISS Designation Board but not 
selected. 
A  Board  Discrepancy  Report  for  Board  E9998A  (ISS Designation 
Board), dated 6 November 1997, reflects that the award/decoration 
for the Defense Meritorious Service Medal Basic, was not entered 
into the Personnel Data System (PDS).  However, the citation for 
the award was filed in the applicant's Officer Selection Folder. 

Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  is  as 
follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

# 

28  Mar 93 
28  Mar 94 
28  Mar 95 
6 Oct 95 
15 Apr 96 
15 Apr 97 
19 Feb 98 

OVERALL PERFORMANCE 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 
Meets 

Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 
Standards 

#  Top report at time of nonselection for ISS by the AY98 ISS 

Designation Board 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, states that the 
DMSM citation was on file for the ISS Designation Board; however, 
it  was  not  present  on  the  Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB) . 
Further, each eligible officer  received notification  after  his 
selection to major that he would be considered as a candidate for 
ISS.  Had the applicant reviewed his promotion records prior to 
the ISS board rather than after it, the DMSM could and would have 
been  reflected  on  the  Professional  Military  Education  (PME) 
selection brief.  They do not believe the applicant showed proper 
diligence to ensure his records were accurate prior to the  ISS 
board held in November. 
The decoration close out date for the AFCM  (20LC) is 8 July 1997 
and  the  Special Order  was  published  on  19  December  1997.  As 
such, the  special order and  citation were processed within  the 
guidelines of  the governing directive and neither were  due  for 
file  until  17  February  1997  (sic).  Not  only  was  the  AFCM 
citation not required to be on file for the board, it could not 
have been since the special order awarding the decoration had not 
been published when the board convened. 
By regulation, an AFEM is not required to be filed in the Officer 
Selection Record  (OSR), nor is it required to be reflected on the 
PME  selection brief.  Therefore, the  applicant's contention on 
this issue is unfounded. 

While  it  may  be  argued  that  the  contested decorations  were  a 
factor in the applicant's nonselection for ISS, there is no clear 
evidence that they negatively impacted his opportunity to attend 
PME.  ISS boards evaluate the  entire  officer selection record. 
The  ISS  selection  board  had  the  applicant's  entire  officer 
selection record that clearly outlined his accomplishments since 

2 

the date he came on active duty. 
request be denied. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

They recommend the applicant's 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
A  copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant 
on 16 February 1998 for review and response within 30 days.  As 
of this date, no response has been receive by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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 he should be  reconsidered 
for  in-residence  Intermediate Service  School  (ISS)/Air Command 
and  Staff  College  (ACSC) . 
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.  Although we cannot determine why the 
applicant  was  not  selected  by  the  Academic  Year  1998  ISS 
Designation Board, we are compelled to conclude that the missing 
DMSM from the Professional Military Education  (PME) brief was a 
harmless error.  The applicant also contends that the AFCM  20LC 
was not reflected in his record prior to the ISS Board.  However, 
the award  is not official until the order is published and the 
order  for  the  AFCM  20LC  was  published  after  the  ISS  Board 
convened.  We  also  note  that  the  AFEM  is  not  required  to  be 
reflected on the PME selection brief.  Therefore, we 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 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 

3 

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 5 November 1998, under the provisions of AFI 
36-2603. 

Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair 
Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member 
Ms. Patricia A. Vestal, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 12 Jan 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. 
Applicant’s Officer Selection Record. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 5 Feb 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 16 Feb 98. 

“ad1 Chair 

4