.
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
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”...
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.
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...
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...
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...
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. ...
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...
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...
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...
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...