Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800391
Original file (9800391.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
. 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00391 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

His  records,  to  include  the  Joint  Service  Commendation  Medal 
(JSCM) and the Officer Performance Report  (OPR) ,  closing 15 June 
1996,  be  considered  by  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for 
promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  for  the  Calendar 
Years  1996C  (CY96C)  and  CY97C  lieutenant  colonel  selection 
boards. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The reasons the applicant believes the records to be  in error or 
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at 
Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The relevant facts pertaining to this application, extracted from 
the  applicant's military  records, are  contained  in  the  letters 
prepared  by  the  appropriate  offices  of  the  Air  Force. 
Accordingly,  there  is  no  need  to  recite  these  facts  in  this 
Record of Proceedings. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this 
application and  states  that  since  the  memorandum  awarding  the 
JSCM was not written until after the  CY96C and  CY97C selection 
boards  and  there  is  no  indication  a  delay  occurred  in  the 
processing of the decoration, SSB consideration is not warranted. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  applicant reviewed the Air  Force evaluation and provided  a 
response which is attached at Exhibit E. 

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Acting  Chief, Appeals and  SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed 
this  application  and  states  that  the  contested  OPR  was  not 
required to be  filed in the applicant's  records until after the 
CY96C selection board.  Although the OPR was filed 6 days late, 
it was not overdue at the time the CY96C board convened. 

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

t 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the 
applicant  on  29  June  1998, for  review  and  response  within  30 
days.  However, 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.  Insufficient  relevant  evidence  has  been  presented  to 
demonstrate  the  existence of  probable  error  or  injustice.  We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinions  and 
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as  the 
basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim of  an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

2 

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 2 9   October 1 9 9 8 ,   under the provisions of AFI 
3 6 - 2 6 0 3 :  

Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair 
Mr. Loren S. Perlstein, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Mr. Phillip E. Horton, Examiner  (without vote) 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 1 4 9 ,   dated 3 0   Jan 98,  w/atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 2 4   Feb 9 8 .  
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9  Mar 9 8 .  
Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 21 Mar 9 8 .  
Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 1 6   Jun 9 8 .  
Exhibit G.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 29 Jun 9 8 .  

VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ 
Panel Chair 

3 

D E P A R T M E N T  O F  THE A I R   F O R C E  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S  A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L  C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H   AIR  F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

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

SUBJECT: Application for Correction of Milit 

AFBCMR DOC #98-0039 

This memorandum will address the applicant’s 21 Mar 98 rebuttal comments to our 
24 Feb 98 advisory.  We will address his comments on both the decoration - and OPR issues. 

In his letter, the applicant claims the Joint Service Commendation Medal (JSCM), 

inclusive dates Dec 95 - Jul96, was not awarded to him within the 12 months prescribed in DoD 
1348.33-M.  He is partially correct.  The decoration was not awarded to him within a year.  It 
was approved (awarded to him) the thirteenth month after the recognized period of service. 
However, the governing directive does not require the decoration to be approved within  12 
months.  Rather, it states the decoration must be placed in official channels within one year of 
the act, achievement, or service recognized.  By definition, placement in official channels means 
the recommendation has been signed by the initiating ofjcial and endorsed by a higher oficial 
in the chain of command.  The decoration was obviously placed into official channels (signed 
and endorsed by the recommending officials) within the one year time frame since the 
memorandum awarding the decoration was prepared and signed in Aug 97, after the processing 
procedures were completed, and it had been approved by the issuing authority. 

The applicant believes the decoration citation should have been present in his officer 

selection record (OSR) for the P0597C board’s review.  We do not agree.  While the period of 
service occurred prior to the P0597C board, the decoration did not exist in Jul97 when the board 
convened.  The decoration became “real” 11 Aug 97, three weeks after the board.  Even if the 
applicant had received a copy of the memorandum on the day it was signed, it would not have 
been required to be filed in his OSR until  10 Oct 97, some 3 months after the board convened in 
July.  As we pointed out in our previous advisory, the applicant claims he took the decoration to 
his Military Personnel Flight (MPF) in January for entry into his records.  However, it was not 
filed in his OSR when we received his original request in February.  We filed the citation in his 
records on  19 Feb 98. 

The applicant contends his 15 Jun 96 officer performance report (OPR) was “required” to 
be filed in his OSR for the CY96C (8 Jul 96) (P0596C) central lieutenant colonel selection board. 
We disagree.  OPRs are not required to be filed in the OSR until 60 days after the OPR closeout 
date (AFR 36- 10, paragraph 3.1 1 .e).  In this instance, the OPR closed out  15 Jun 96 and was 

“required” to be filed in his OSR by  14 Aug 96.  Even though the OPR was not filed in his OSR 
until 20 Aug 96 (6 days late), it was not required to be filed when the P0596C board convened in 
Jul96.  Most importantly, we find no evidence he wrote a letter to the P0596C board president 
prior to the board to ensure they were aware of his most recent accomplishments.  It was his 
responsibility to do so if he considered them important to his promotion consideration.  He also 
does not indicate what efforts he made to ensure the report was filed prior to the board, nor does 
he provide statements from theevaluators to show what their intentions were.  We note the final 
evaluator signed the report on 12 Jul96, after the P0596C board convened. 

The applicant believes his organization did not make attempts to expedite his 

decoration and OPR and believes it is now impossible to contact anyone, including the director, 
to substantiate his claims because the unit has disbanded.  The burden of proof is on the 
applicant.  He has not substantiated the contested decoration was delayed.  Although the OPR 
was filed 6 days late, it was not overdue at the time the board convened. 

&t4+ 

OY  EE.HOGA 
Acting, Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR F O R C E  MILITARY P E R S O N N E L  CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR F O R C E  B A S E  T E X A S  

2  4  FER 

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPPA 

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

Requested Action.  The applicant requests special selection board (SSB) consideration by 

the CY 96C (8 Jul96) (P0596C) and CY97C (21 Jul97) (P0597C) central lieutenant colonel 
selection boards with inclusion of the Joint Service Commendation Medal (JSCM), inclusive 
dates December  1994 to July 1996 in his officer selection record (OSR). 

Basis for Request.  The applicant believes the absence of the JSCM, awarded to him  13 

months after his tour completion at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, presented a negative 
image of him to the promotion boards and most likely contributed to his nonselection to the 
grade of lieutenant colonel. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timely.  AFI 36-240 1, Correcting Officer and Enlisted 

Evaluation Reports, does not apply in this instance. 

b.  DOD Manual  1348.33-M, Manual of Military Decorations and Awards, 
12 Sep 96, and AFI 36-2803, The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program,  15 Aug 94, 
are the governing directives. 

c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant included a copy of the citation, 

decoration and order for the JSCM. 

d.  We are not convinced by the applicant’s contention that the JSCM should 

have been considered by the P0596C and P0597C boards.  DOD Manual  1348.33-M states, 
“Each recommendation for a Defense decoration must be entered administratively  into command 
or staff channels within one year of the act, achievement, or service to be recognized.”  The 
applicant’s period of service for the JSCM ended July  1996.  The memorandum awarding the 
JSCM was written  11 August  1997, well within regulatoj requirements.  We noted the 
decoration is still not on file in the applicant’s OSR.  We further note the awarding memorandum 
states in bold, all capital letters and underlined text, “Individual(s) must ensure a copy of the 

certificate, citation, and order are placed in their personnel records.”  Although it was clearly the 
applicant’s responsibility to ensure this decoration was forwarded for file and entered into the 
Personnel Data System (PDS), we provided a copy of the decoration to HQ AFPCmPPBR3 for 
filing in his OSR on 19 Feb 98.  It is still the applicant’s responsibility to ensure his servicing 
Military Personnel Flight (MPF) receives a copy of the awarding memorandum for file in the 
Unit Personnel Record Group (UPRG) and update in the PDS.  The fact the citation for the 
JSCM was filed beyond the 60 days required is irrelevant.  Since a decoration does not exist 
until a special order is cut (or in the case of the JSCM, an awarding memorandum), it was not 
required to be filed when the P0596C or P0597C promotion boards convened, nor in fact did it 
exist at that time.  We are provided no indication from the rating chain nor the approval authority 
that a delay occurred in the processing of the applicant’s decoration, or that it was their intention 
it be submitted for approval in time for either promotion board’s review.  Since the applicant’s 
decoration was not delayed, and was accomplished in direct accordance with applicable 
regulations, SSB consideration is not warranted. 

Summary.  Based on the lack of evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is 

appropriate. 

MARIANNE STERLING, Lt Cdl, USAF 
Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch 
Directorate of Personnel Program Mgt 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703475

    Original file (9703475.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    As to the 23 June 1997 duty history entry, the Air Force office of primary responsibility, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, stated that the applicant's letter to the P0597C board president, which explained his then current duty title, was in his Officer Selection Record (0%) when it was considered by the P0597C selection board. The applicant requests two corrections to his duty history. The applicant requests his duty history entry, effective 2 Oct 92, be updated to reflect “Chief, Commodities Section”...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800028

    Original file (9800028.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Applicant alleges that his Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 20 February 1997, was submitted on the wrong form and believes that this error had a negative influence on the CY97C lieutenant colonel selection board members. However, after reviewing applicant's comments to the Air Force evaluation, we are persuaded that his corrected record should be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C board. application.

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803521

    Original file (9803521.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Had he properly reviewed his OPBs prior to either of his BPZ considerations, his record would have been accurate for his P0598B in-the-promotion zone consideration. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he believes he is deserving of promotion and he is simply requesting that he be considered for promotion with accurate...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703489

    Original file (9703489.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and stated that OPRs on active duty officers are due for file at HQ AFPC no later than 60 days after closeout date. t RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD: A majority of the panel finds insufficient evidence 'of error or injustice and recommends the application be denied. Air Force Review Boards Agency DEPARTMENT OF THE A I R FORCE HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE P E R S O N N...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9801651

    Original file (9801651.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    What is not addressed by either the applicant or the lone evaluator is what unit mission description was used on the OPRs rendered for other officers assigned to the same unit during the period of the contested report. Since applicant‘s records were not complete and up to date at the time he was considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel, we recommend his corrected record be considered for promotion by SSB for the CY97 board. The applicant requests changing the unit mission description...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9803124

    Original file (9803124.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also believes he may have been nonselected because of a perception among the board members that he spent too much time at Kirtland AFB, NM. DPPPA stated that it was the applicant’s responsibility to notify the board of the circumstances surrounding his extended tenure at one location, and the omission of the duty title effective 18 Dec 93 from his OSB if he believed them important to his promotion consideration. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9802824

    Original file (9802824.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In support of his request, applicant submits copies of his AFI 36-2401 application, the AFI 36-2401 Decision, his OPR closing 15 Jun 97, and a statement from his Military Personnel Flight (MPR) (Exhibit A). Although the final evaluator signed the OPR on 27 Jun 97, the fact remains the OPR was not required to be filed in the applicant’s OSR before the selection board convened on 21 Jul 97 (Exhibit C). Despite the fact the 15 Jun 97 OPR was submitted on the correct closeout date, it was the...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9703787

    Original file (9703787.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that his senior rater provided a statement indicating the original PRF was in error and subsequently needed to be replaced with a new PRF correcting all the errors. He requests that the Board order the replacement of his original PRF with the reaccomplished PRF, as supported by his former senior rater and MLR president; and, direct promotion to lieutenant colonel as if selected by the CY96...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1999 | 9801923

    Original file (9801923.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    DPPPA stated that both the Education/Training Report (TR) and MSM, 1OLC, were filed in the applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR) and considered by the P0597C central lieutenant colonel selection board. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that it ignores his contention that his pre-board records...

  • AF | BCMR | CY1998 | 9800499

    Original file (9800499.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    In this respect, the Board majority notes that the Evaluation Report Appeal Board ( E M ) corrected the contested OPR by changing the additional rater's PME recommendation from ISS to SSS. Therefore, a majority of the Board recommends his corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board for the CY97C board. In the applicant’s case, the information regarding the award was available based upon the announcement date of 24 Feb 97; however, there is no requirement in AFI 36-2402 that...