AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

JUL  2 4  1998 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  9 8 - 0 0 2 8 5  
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

The  Enlisted  Performance  Report  (EPR) rendered  for  the  period 
29  May 1 9 9 6   through 2 8   May 1 9 9 7   be declared void and removed from 
his records. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

1.  He believes the indorser had strong animosity due to the fact 
that he  initiated a complaint with Social Actions concerning an 
incident  with  the  indorser,  who  used  derogatory  comments  and 
profanity  during  a  fire  alarm  response  at  the  entire  fire 
department  at  Duke  Field, which  including  him  (the applicant) 
being on duty. 

He  received  positive  feedback  from  his  rater  during  the 

2 .  
reporting period. 

3 .   The indorser from  the  contested report did not have  first- 
hand knowledge of his duty performance and was, therefore, unable 
to render a proper evaluation of his duty performance. 
4 .   His indorser was away on temporary duty  (TDY) for a six-month 
period during the reporting period. 

- 

* 

~ 

The  contested  EPR  is  inconsistent  with  his  previous  duty 

5. 
performance. 
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a personal statement 
and statements from individuals outside the rating chain. 
Applicant's complet;  submission is attached at Exhibit A .  

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

~~ 

The  applicant  is currently serving in the Regular Air  Force  in 
the grade of technical sergeant. 

. 

.. 

.

.

 

98-00285 

The  appli 
Correcting 
Evaluation 

.cant  filed  a  similar  appeal  under  AFI.  36-2401, 
Officer  and  Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports, which  the 
Report Appeal Board  (E-) 

declined to consider. 

EPR profile since 1991 reflects the following: 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

PERIOD ENDING 

2 Feb 91 
2 Feb 92 
2 Feb 93 
1 Nov 93 
28 May 94 
28 May 95 
28 May 96 
*28 May 97 
28 May 98 
*Contested report 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  BCMR  and  SSB  Section,  AFPC/DPPP,  reviewed  this 
application and  states  that  they  suggest  the  applicant  file  a 
complaint with the base  Inspector General  (IG), requesting they 
specifically investigate his allegation against the indorser from 
the report, to determine if the OPR was rendered to the applicant 
in reprisal for his initiating a social actions complaint.  They 
also state, apparently, the indorser from the report had higher 
expectations  and  standards  of  duty  performance  than  did  the 
applicant's rater.  Further, a positive feedback session does not 
guarantee  a  firewalled  EPR. 
In  reference  to  the  applicant 
stating that the indorser from the contested report did not have 
first-hand knowledge of his duty performance and was, therefore, 
unable  to  render  a  proper  evaluation  of  his  duty perforqance; 
they state that the fact the indorser was zot physically located 
_at Qis duty station is not an issue.  Subsequent evaluators are 
not  required  to have  first-hand knowledge of  the  ratee-if  they 
feel their knowledge is insufficient, they may obtain information 
from other reliable sources.  They also point out the number of 
days the indorser was away TDY before the close-out date of  the 
report is not an issue.  There is no provision for an indorser to 
have a certain amount of days before he can render a performance 
report.  In fact, Air Force policy allows evaluators other than 
the rater to be assigned after the EPR's closeout date.  Also, it 
is not  feasible to compare one report covering a certain period 
of time with another report covering a different period of time. 
The EPR was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of 
time  based  on  the  performance  and  conduct  noted  during  that 
period,  not  based  on  previous  performance/conduct.  They  also 

2 

98-00285 

note that the applicant was involved in some sore of disciplinary 
action during  the  reporting period as  documented on -the EPR  in 
the  last  line  of  Section  IV. 
They  state  apparently,  the 
situation was resolved.  They indicate that the applicant failed 
to  provide  anything  to  convince  them  he  was  rendered  an 
evaluation  report  due  to  reprisal.  Therefore,  they  recommend 
denial of applicant's request. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

,  The  Chief,  Inquiries/AFBCMR Section, AFPC/DPPPAB, also  reviewed 
'  this  application  and  states  that  should  the  Board  void  the 
contested report in its entirety, upgrade the overall rating, or 
make  any  other  significant  change, providing  the  applicant  is 
otherwise  eligible,  the  applicant  will  be  entitled  to 
supplemental promotion consideration commencing with cycle 9837. 

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Copies of  the Air  Force evaluations were  forwarded to applicant 
on 9 March  1998 for review and response within 30 days.  As  of 
this date, no response has been received by this office. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
laws or regulations. 

2 .  

The application was timely filed. 

Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate 
3 .  
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After reviewing the 
evidence of  record, we  are persuaded that-the  contested  report  is 
_notIan adequate  assessment  of  applicant's  performance  during  the 
period in question.  In this respect, we note that the rater on the 
contested  report  noted  applicant's  involvement  in  a  disciplinary 
incident and  that  this  issue  had  been  resolved.  The rater, with 
complete  knowledge  of  the  incident,  gave  the  applicant  a  "5" 
promotion recommendation.  Based on the evidence of record, we find 
that  the  downgrading  of  the  report  by  the  indorser  was  unjust. 
Therefore, we  recommend the  contested report be  declared void  and 
removed  from  applicant's  records.  In  addition, we  recommend his 
corrected  record  be  provided  supplemental promotion  consideration 
by  all  appropriate  cycles.  As  a  matter  of  information, if  the 
applicant  believes  that  the  indorser  rendered  the  report  in 
reprisal, he should contact the base Inspector General. 

3 

,

'

 

. I  

98-00285 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of  the Department of  the Air  Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Enlisted 
Performance  Report, AF  Form  910, rendered  for  the  period  29  May 
1996  through  28 May  1997, be  declared  void  and  removed  from  his 
records. 

It is  further recommended that  applicant  be  provided  supplemental 
consideration for promotion to the grade of master sergeant for all 
appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 9837. 

If  AFPC  discovers  any  adverse  factors  during  or  subsequent  to 
supplemental  consideration  that  are  separate  and  apart,  and 
unrelated  to  the  issues  involved  in  this  application, that  would 
have  rendered  the  applicant  ineligible  for  the  promotion,  such 
information  will  be  documented  and  presented  to  the  board  for a 
final  determination  on  the  individual's  qualification  for  the 
promotion. 

If  supplemental  promotion  consideration  results  in  the  selection 
for promotion to the higher grade, immediately after such promotion 
the records shall be corrected to show that applicant was promoted 
to  the  higher  grade  on  the  date  of  rank  established  by  the 
supplemental promotion and that  applicant  is entitled to all pay, 
allowances, and benefits of such grade as of that date. 

The following members of  the  Board  considered this application in 
Executive  Session  on  25  June  1998, under  the  Drovisions  of 
AFI 
36-2603: 

Ms Patricia J. Zarodkiewicz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member 
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member 
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner  (Xthout vote) 

t 

All'members 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended. 

The 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Jan 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 18 Feb 98. 
. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 7 Feb 98. 
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Mar 98. 

PATRICIA Fd7Y9' 

J  ZARODKI WICZ 

Panel Chkdr 

4 

- 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BASE TEXAS 

1 8  FEB 1938 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFBCMR 
FROM:  HQ AFPUDPPP 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX 78 150-47 10 

SUBJECT: 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests the enlisted performance report that closed out 

28 May 97 be removed fiom his personnel records. 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends the indorser from the contested report reprised 

against him because he filed a Social Actions complaint against the indorser for using foul 
language and making derogatory comments during a fire alarm response. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Cohments. 

a.  The application is timely.  The applicant filed a similar.appeal under AFI 
36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, which the Evaluation Report 
Appeal Board (ERAB) declined to consider.  A copy of the ERAB decision letter is include( 
in the applicant’s appeal package. 

. 

b.  AFX  36-2403, The Enlisted Evaluation System, 15 Jul94 is the governing 

directive. 

c.  In support of his appeal the applicant includes a personal brief and a copy 

of the package he submitted to the ERAB. 

- 

d.  Air Force policy is that an evaluation report is accurate as written when it 

t 

-  m m e s  a matter of record.  It takes substantial evidence to the contrary to have a report 
changed or voided.  To effectively challenge an EPR, it is important to hear f b m  all the 
evaluators on the contested report--not only for support, but for clarificatiodexplanation. The 
applicant failed to provide support from ahyone in the rating chain of the 28 May 97 report. 
The statements from outside the rating chain are not germane to this case.  While the 
individuals are entitled to their opinions of the applicant, we are providd no reason to believe 
they were in a better position to assess the applicant’s duty performance during the contested 
rating period than those specifically charged with his evaluation.  In the absence of 
information from the evaluators, official substantiation of error or injustice h m  the Inspector 

General (IC) or Social Actions is appropriate, but not provided in this case. We suggest the 
applicant file a complaint with the base Inspector General (IG), requesting they specifically 
investigate his allegation against the indorser from the report, to determine if the OPR was 
rendered to the applicant in reprisal for his initiating a social actions complaint. 

' 

e.  The applicant contends he received positive feedback fiom his rater during the 
reporting period, and included a copy of the performance feedback worksheet.  The purpose of 
the feedback session is to give the ratee direction and to define performance expectations for the 
rating period in question.  Feedback also provides the ratee the opportunity to improve 
pekormance, if necessary, before the EPR is written.  The rater who prepares the PFW may use 
the PFW as an aid in preparing the EPR and, if applicable, subsequent feedback sessions. The 
PFW acts as a scale on where the ratee stands in relation to the duty performance expectations of 
the - rater.  A PFW with all items marked "needs little or no improvementff means the ratee is 
meeting the rater's standards. Apparently, the indorser fiom the report had higher expectations 
and standards of duty performance than did the applicant's rater. Further, a positive feedback 
session does not guarantee a firewaIled EPR.  Also, a ratee who performs current duties in an 
exceptional manner could demonstrate only limited potential for the next higher grade.  Or, a 
rate who still needs to improve in the performance of current duties could demonstrate great 
potential for the next higher grade.  There is a not a direct correlation between the markings on 
the PFW and the ratings on an EPR 

f. The applicant asserts the indorser fiom the contested report did not have fust- 
hand knowledge of his duty performance and was, therefore, unable to render a proper evaluation 
of his duty performance.  The Air Force charges evaluators with rendering fair and accurate 
EPRs and'ensuring the comrhents support the ratings.  The fact the indorser was not physically 
located at his duty station is not an issue.  Subsequent evaluators are not required to have "first- 
hand knowledge" of the ratee-if  they feel their knowledge is insufficient, they may obtain 
information h m  other reliable sources. 

g.  The applicant contends his indorser was away on temporary duty (TDY) for a 
six-month period during the reporting period.  We would like to point out the number of days the 
indorser was away TDY before the closeout date of the report is not an issue.  There is no 
provision for an indorser to have a certain amount of days before he can render a performance 
report.  In.fact, Air Force policy allows evaluators other than the rater to be assigned after the 
EPR's  closeout date. 

- 

T 

h.  The applicant contends the contested EPR is inconsistent with his previous 

duty performance. It is not feasible to compare one report covering a certain period of time with 
another report covering a different period of time.  This does not allow for changes in the ratee's 
performance and does not follow the intent of the governing regulation, AFI 36-2403. The EPR 
was designed to provide a rating for a specific period of time based on the performance and 
conduct noted during that period, not based on previous performancdconduct. . 

i.  We note the applicant was involved in some sort of disciplinary action during 
the reporting period as documented on the EPR in the last line of Section IV.  AppGently, the 
situation was resolved. 

Summary.  The applicant failed to provide anything to convince us he was rendered an 

evaluation report due to reprisal.  Our recommendation of denial is appropriate. 

qOYCE E. HOGAN 
Chief, BCMR and SSB Section 
Dir of Personnel Program Mgt 

t 

.

*

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE  A I R   FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUM FOR AFPCDPPPAB 

AFBCMR 

FROM: HQ AFPC/DPPPWB 

550 C Street West, Ste 9 
Randolph AFB TX 78150471 I 

Application for Correction of Military Records 

SUBJECT: 
Requested Action.  The applicant is requesting the AFBCMR void his Enlisted Performance 
Report (EPR) closing 28 May 97.  We will address the supplemental promotion consideration 
issue should the request be approved. 
Reason for Request. The applicant believes the contested report is unjust. 
- Facts.  See A]FPC/DPPPAB Ltr. 
Discussion.  The first time the contested  report will be considered in the promotion process is 
cycle 98E7 to master sergeant (promotions effective Aug 98 - Jul99).  Should the AFBCMR 
void  the report in its entirety, or  upgrade the overall rating,  providing he is otherwise eligible, 
the applicant will be entitled to supplemental promotion consideration beginning with cycle 
98E7 providing he is not selected during the initial 98E7 cycle.  However, if the EPR is voided 
and the favorable results received by  1 May 98, no supplemental consideration would be required 
as there would be sufficient time to update the promotion file.  Promotions for this cycle will be 
accomplished during the May/Jun 98 time frame. 

Recommendation.  We defer to the recommendation of AFPCDPPPAB. 

-.- 

t 

Chief, InquiriedAFBCMR Section 
Enlisted Promotion Branch 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

JUL  2 4  5998 

AFBCMR 98-000285 

I 

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 116), it is directed that: 

f 

and removed from his records. 

of the Department of the Air Force relating to 
d to show that the Enlisted Performance Rep0 
996 through 28 May  1997, be, and hereby is, 

It is further directed that applicant be provided supplemental consideration for promotion 

to the grade of master sergeant for all appropriate cycles beginning with cycle 98E7. 

If AFPC discovers any adverse factors during or subsequent to supplemental 

consideration that are separate and apart, and unrelated to the issues involved in this application, 
that would have rendered the applicant ineligible for the promotion, such information will be 
documented and presented to the board for a final determination on the individual's qualification 
for the promotion. 

If supplemental promotion consideration results in the selection for promotion to the 
higher grade, immediately after such promotion the records shall be corrected to show that 
applicant was promoted to the higher grade on the date of rank established by the supplemental 
promotion and that applicant is entitled to all pay, allowances, and benefits of such gradetas of 
that date. 

- 

I /   Air Force Review Boards Agency 

. 1 1  

1 ,  

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00444 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT.REQUESTS THAT: 

He be considered for promotion to the grade of Lieutenant Colonel 
by  Special  Selection  Board  (SSi3)'  for  the  Calendar  Year  1997 
(CY97C) Lieutenant Colonel Line Central Selection Board 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  aeronautical  rating  on  his  Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB) 
should read, "Command Pilot", not "Senior Pilot ." 
The applicant states that there was a gap between the effective 
date  of  his  aeronautical  rating  and  the  requested  date  of  the 
order because of a computer program update.  This delay was the 
most  probable  cause  in  not  updating  his  OSB  in  time  for  the 
lieutenant colonel promotion board. 

In support'of the appeal, applicant submits his Officer Selection 
Brief  (OSB) and aeronautical order/aeronautical rating. 

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 Ma] or. 

He was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of 
lieutenant colonel by the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Line Selection 
Board. 

. -  - 

OER/OPR profile since 1992 reflects the following: 

PERIOD ENDING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

30 Jan 92 
8 Jul 92 
8 Jul 93 
8 Jul 94 

MEETS STANDARDS 
MEETS STANDARDS 
MEETS STANDARDS 
MEETS STANDARDS 

. v  

98-00444 

8 Jul 95 
8 Jul 96 
8 Jul 97 

MEETS STANDARDS 
MEETS STANDARDS 
MEETS STANDARDS 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Chief, Officer Promotion Management, Directorate of Personnel 
Program Management,  HQ  AFPC/DPPP,  reviewed this application and 
states that if a memorandum from the applicant or the applicant's 
flight  records  office  was  generated  and  was  received  by  their 
office, there is no record of such action by  their  office, the 
applicant, or the applicant's  flight records office.  Memorandums 
for  correction  of  OSB  information  are  considered  working 
documents and are destroyed by their office upon approval of the 
board  report. 
The  aeronautical  order  does  not  provide 
information  or  evidence  that  actions  were  taken  prior  to  the 
board  to  correct  aeronautical  information  on  his  OSB. 
The 
applicant  assumed  the errors were  to be  corrected but  does not 
indicate whether he ensured the information was updated.  It is 
the  applicant's  responsibility and  not  the  MPF,  flight  records 
office or the Air Force, to ensure his records are correct prior 
to the board.  Therefore,  they  recommend denial of  applicant's 
request. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to applicant on 
18 March 1998 for review and response within 30 days.  As of this 
date, no response has been received by this office. 

- 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 
law or regulations. 

2.  The application was timely filed. 

3.  Sufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  After 
reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  we  are  persuaded  that  the 
aeronautical  rating  of  command  pilot,  effective  28  June  1997, 
should have been  reflected on the applicant's  officer  selection 
brief  (OSB) prior to the convening of the CY97C board.  In this 
respect, we note that the applicant was awarded the aeronautical 

2 

98-00444 

rating  of  command  pilot,  effective  28  June  1997. 
However, 
aeronautical orders were not issued until after the CY97C board 
convened. 
Therefore,  the  OSB  considered  by  the  CY97C  board 
reflected  the  aeronautical  rating  of  senior  pilot.  Since  the 
applicant  met  the  requirements  for  award  of  the  advanced 
aeronautical rating  of  command  pilot  prior  to  the  CY97C  board 
convening  and  the  delay  in the preparation of  the  aeronautical 
orders  was  through  no  fault  of  his  own,  we  believe  the 
applicant’s  records,  to  include  an  OSB  reflecting  the 
aeronautical rating  of  command  pilot,  effective  28  June  1997, 
should  be  considered for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant 
colonel  by  Special  Selection Board  (SSB) for  the  CY97C  board. 
Therefore,. we  recommend his  records be  corrected to  the  extent 
indicated below. 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating  to  APPLICANT,  be  corrected  to  include  an  Officer 
Selection  Brief  reflecting  an  aeronautical  rating  of  Command 
Pilot, effective 28 June 1997, be considered for promotion to the 
grade of  lieutenant colonel by  Special Selection Board  for the 
Calendar  Year  1997C  Lieutenant  Colonel  Line  Central  Selection 
Board. 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive Session on 7 July 1998, under the provisions of AFI 36- 
2603: 

Mrs. Barbara A. Westgatc, Panel Chair 
Mr. Frederick R. Beaman 111, Member 
Mr. Steve Shaw, Member 

All  members voted  to correct the  records, as recomm 
following documentary evidence was considered: 

ded.  Th 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 28 October 1997, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 8 March 1998, w/atch. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 March 1998. 

‘BARBARA A. WESTGA$ 
Panel Chair 

3 

. 

DEPARTMENT O F  THE AIR  FORCE 

- - 

HBADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE BABE TEXAS 

MEMORANDUMFOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  550 C Street West Suite 8 
SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Military Record - 

Randolph AFI3 TX  78150-4710 

Reauestd Action. Applicant requests correction of aeronautid rating on his OBcer Selection 
Brief(OS3).  Although applicant does not request reconsideration for promotion by a Special Selection 
Board (SSB) for this request, he indicates he has a request for SSB using the AF Form 948 appeal process. 

Discussion. 
a. Application is timely.  Applicant met the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Line Central Selection 

Board on 2 1 Jul97. 

b.  The applicant’s OSB for the CY97C Lt Col Line board, dated 18 Jul97, reflects his 

aeronautical rating as “senior pilot.”  Applicant provides Aeronautical Order #679, dated 18 Jul97, 
reflecting award of “command pilot” effective 28 Jun 97.  Ea memorandum from the applicant or the 
appIicant’s flight’ records office was generated and was received by this office, there is no record of such 
action by this oEce, the applicant, or the applicant’s flight recofds office. Memorandm for correction of 
OSB information are considered working documents and are destroyed by this office upon approval of the 
board report.  The aeronautical order does not provide information or evidence that actions were taken 
prior to the board to correct aeronautical information on his OSB. 

c.  Applicant claims a “gap between the effective date of my aeronautical rating and the requested 
date of the order was caused because of a computer program update.. .” and that this “delay was the most 
probable Cause in not updating my AIR FORCE OFFICER SELECTION BRIEF in time for the 9705C 
Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.” 

d.  Applicant claims he was ‘‘under the assumption that my aeronautical rating was to be corrected 

prior to the 9705C Lieutenant Colonel Promotion Board.” 

Recommendation.  Deny applicant’s request for correction of aeroaautical information. Deny 

assumed request for reconsideration for promotion by SSB. 

Summarv. 

9800444 
-  -  -  -  .  . . 

I 

. .  

.

.

 

2 
a.  AJ?13 6-250 I, Oflcer Promotions and Mectfve continuation, para 1 -7 states that the eligible 

officer’s responsibilities for promotion consideration are to (1) determine eligibility timing for Various 
promdon zone considerations, (2) review his OPB for accuracy, (3) review his PRF and OPR for 
accuracy, (4) consider submitting a letter to the board and lastly, (5) report any errors to the hfdhry 
Personnel Flight (MPF) Promotions. These responsibilities were the same when the applicant was 
considered for promotion to major and for his considerations below the promotion zone on the last two 
li- 
coIone1 promotion boards. The applicant does not provide any evidence or intbrmatiun to 
indicate he took action to correct his record.  Applicant claims he assumed the errors were to be corrected 
but does not indicate whether he ensured the information was updated.  It is the applicant’s responsibility 
and not the MPF, flight records office or the Air Force, to ensure his records are correct prior to the 
convening of the board. 

b. AFI 36-2501, 1 Mar 96, para 6.3.2.2, and Air Force Regubon 36-89, Promotion ofActive 

Duty List Oflcers, 17 Apr 92, para 32, specifically stafes “Do not have an SSB if; by exercising 
reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission and could have taken 
corrective acticm before the ongdly scheduled board convened.” This guiclmcp tvm applicable to the 
applicant’s ’94, ’96, and ‘97 promotion board co1IsidefafioI1s. 

c.  MPF Memorandum (MPFh4) 97-13, dated 7 Mar 97, Subject: CY97C Lieutenant Colonel 

(LAF) Central Selqdion Board, attachment 3, para 12, spedically states procedures to correct 
aeronautical flying data. These procedures were similar fbr the applicant’s ’94 and ’96 promotion board 
considerations. The MPFM states, “For correction, officer should request their HOSM provide them with 
a correct update of their flying hours.  This can then be presented to the board ifthe officer writes a letter 
to the board president and attaches the HOSMs update.  HOSM/FMO update letters may also be 
forwarded to DPPPOO for changes to the OSB in lieu of a letter to tbe board president.”  While the 
applicant provides a copy of the aeronautical order changhg his aeronautical ratin& this order does not 
show the fhght records oBce or the applicant attempted to c o d &   with AFPCYDPPPOO in order to 
have the information corrected of his OSB. Further, there is no evidence the applicant attempted to 
correspond with the board president in order to bring to the board’s attention the recent change in his 
aeronautid rating. 

d.  There is no evidence any effort was made by the applicant to correct his record or that the 
applicant experienced unique circumstances.  Grantrng relief to this applicant will &od  him an unfiir 
advantage over the many other officers who made the effort to ensure their records were complete and 
accurate. 

e.  Strongly recommend this application for correction and reconsideration Eor promotion by SSB 

be denied. We have no recommendation ifthe Board‘s decision is to grant reliefover our objections. 

- POC: Mr. Gil Tone, DSN 487-5602. 

Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

9800444 
. . .  

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-00444 

JUL  2 7  1998 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF 

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

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

of the Department of the Air Force relating t 
ected to include an Officer Selection Brief reflecting an 
, effective 28 June 1997, be considered for promotion to the 

grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1997C Lieutenant 
Colonel Line Central Selection Board. 

Director 
Air Force Review Boards Agency