AIR FORCE 

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

FEB 2 4 1999 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00135 

COUNSEL:  NONE 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1.  His  Officer  Selection  Record  (OSR) and  Officer  Selection 
Brief  (OSB), reviewed by  the  Calendar Year  (CY) 1997C Central 
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be corrected in the following 
areas : 

a.  Assignment  History:  Add  the  duty  title  of  IIAssistant 

Operations Officer1# to the OSB. 

b.  Add  the  I1K1I prefix to his Duty Air Force Specialty Code 

(DAFSC), effective 8 May 97. 
2.  He  be  considered  for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel by  special selection board  (SSB) for the CY97C Central 
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
There  are  two  (2) errors  on  his  OSB  that  met  the  Lieutenant 
Colonel promotion board  in July  1997.  First, the most  recent 
Duty Title, Assistant Operations Officer, does not appear on the 
top line.  Second, the IIK1! Instructor prefix does not appear on 
his DAFSC. 
In support of  his  appeal, the applicant  submits a copy of  his 
CY97C OSB and a copy of AF  Form 2096  (Classification/On-the-Job 
Training Action) . 
Applicantls submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant in the Reserve of the 
Air Force on 6 November 1981. 

Applicant was considered, but not selected, by the CY97C Central 
Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board  which  convened  on  21 July 
1997. 
Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  is  as 
follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

5 Nov 94 
5 Nov 95 
22 Dec 96 
#  31 May 97 
30 Nov 97 

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

#  Top report at time of nonselection for promotion to the grade 
of lieutenant colonel by the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Board. 

- 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief, Reports and Queries Team, Directorate of Assignments, 
HQ  AFPC/DPAISl,  states  that  based  on  the  Officer  Performance 
Report  (OPR) [closing 31 May 971  in his officer selection folder 
(OSF) , they concur with the award of the aKtl prefix to the 8  May 
1997 Duty Air Force Specialty Code  (DAFSC).  However, they do not 
concur with the AF Form 2096 submitted by the applicant, nor the 
award of a new duty entry as the "Assistant Operations Officert1 
effective  1 June  1997. 
The  AF  Form  2096  is  changing  the 
applicant's DAFSC to include the ItKtt prefix and changing his duty 
title  to  read  I1Assistant Operations  Officer,  both  effective 
8 May  1997. 
The  "Assistant  Operations  Off icerut duty  title 
conflicts with the duty title on the OPR closing 31 May 97 as the 
t148th Operations Group Quality Advisor. II 
In addition, the only 
area that referenced a 1 June 1997 effective date on the AF Form 
2096 was Block V, and this pertained to the change of reporting 
official  (CRO) .  An  officer must hold a duty for 60 days for it 
to be a part of his duty history.  They defer to HQ AFPC/DPPPAB. 
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief, Appeals  and  SSB  Branch, HQ  AFPC/DPPP,  states  that 
during the month of May, both an OPR and PRF were due and written 
on the applicant.  The documentation to effect the DAFSC and duty 
title change is invalid and was not  submitted until  after both 
reports  were  written. 
The  OPR  closing  31  May  97  reflects 
ItK12F3F1l and is supported by comments in the body of the report; 
but  the  PRF  reflects  only  12F3F  with  no  mention  of  the 
applicant's achievement.  Further, the rater's comments and the 
additional  rater's comments of  the  31 May 
97 OPR  both mention 
that  the applicant was  selected to be  the 
Assistant  Operations 
Officer  -  obviously a  future assignment. 
It  is believed  that 
good  faith  by  the 
both  the  OPR  and  PRF  were  rendered  in 

2 

evaluators  based  on  their  knowledge  of  the  applicant  and  his 
duties at  the  time  the  reports were  rendered.  Obviously, the 
senior rater was unaware of the applicant's upgrade to instructor 
pilot when he wrote the contested PRF since the paperwork was not 
initiated  until  after  the  PRF  process.  If  the  applicant  can 
obtain and submit a statement from his senior rater attesting to 
that  fact,  they,  AFPC/DPPP,  have  no  objection  to  the  board 
directing a change on the PRF only by  adding the  'IK''  prefix to 
the applicant's DAFSC. 

AFPC/DPPP does not believe a change to the applicant's duty title 
on the OSB is warranted, especially since an officer must hold a 
duty title for 60 days for it to be a part of his duty history. 
The AF 2096 submitted by the applicant to effect the DAFSC change 
is  not  valid  because  it  was  not  properly  coordinated  at  the 
military personnel flight  (MPF) .  Additionally, it was submitted 
after the OPR and PRF were written and were a matter of record. 
The OPR rendered to the applicant with a close out date of 31 May 
1997 authenticates the duty title "48th Operations Group Quality 
Advisor."  A duty history entry is not authorized at all for the 
period  from  1 June 1997 showing the  new duty  title  "Assistant 
Operations  Officer, I' 
DAFSC  K12F3FI  until  the  appropriate 
documentation, properly coordinated and approved, is effected. 
AFPC/DPPP  is  not  convinced  the  applicant  showed  the  proper 
diligence to ensure his record was accurate when it met the CY97C 
board. 
Each  eligible  officer  considered  by  the  CY97C  board 
received detailed instructions for review of their pre-selection 
briefs  and  associated  records. 
It  was  the  applicant's 
responsibility  to  notify  the  board  of  the  new  duty  title, 
especially since the AF Form 2096 was never properly coordinated 
and approved.  Additionally, the applicant could have written a 
letter  to  the  promotion  board  president.  They  recommend  the 
applicant's requests be denied. 
A 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  13  April  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 

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  his  Officer  Selection 
Record  (OSR) and Officer Selection Brief  (OSB) ,  reviewed by  the 
Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection 
Board, should be  corrected as he 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. 
We  believe  that  applicant s 
contentions  have  been  adequately  addressed  by  the  Air  Force 
Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR).  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 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 5 Jan 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Officer Selection Record. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, dated 27 Feb 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 24 Mar 98. 
Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, 

BARBARA A. WESTGATE 
Panel Chair 

4