. 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

I

t

 

RECORD' OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARDTFOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

JAN  15 ig,ag 

DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00436 

COUNSEL:  None 
HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

He  be  given  consideration  for  promotion  to 
lieutenant  colonel  by  Special  Selection  Board 
Calendar  Year  1997C  (CY97C) Lieutenant  Colonel 
reaccomplished Promotion Recommendation Form  (PRF) 
duty  title  of  "Lead,  C-17  Flexible  Sustainment 
records. 

the  grade  of 
(SSB)  for  the 
Board  with  a 
,  reflecting a 
Team,'I in  his 

4 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

The  PRF  submitted  for  the  CY97C  board  was  unjust  because  it 
contained incorrect data in Sections 111 and  IV.  Consequently, 
the contested PRF did not paint an accurate picture and adversely 
effected his chances for promotion. He explains what happened and 
why he believes the original PRF warrants correction.  He argues 
that,  contrary  to  the  Management  Level  Review  Board  (MLRB) 
president's statement, the  senior  rater  tried  to  find  out  the 
facts and correct the error the moment he was  first notified on 
21 June 1997. 

The  applicant  provides,  in  part,  a  statement  from. the  senior 
rater, who support's. and explains the proposed changes to the PRF. 
Also provided is, a'statement from the MLRB president, who agrees 
with  changing Section  111 but  does not  concur with  the  ch'anges 
proposed for Section IV. 

i .  

A copy of applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit 
A. 

A 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

The  applicant was  considered but  not  selected  for promotion  to 
lieutenant colonel by the CY97C board, which convened on 21 July 
1997. 

The contested PRF reflects an'bverall promotion recommendation of 
"Promote. 
In  Section  111,  the  duty  title  is  "Lead,  C-17 
Software  Integration Team.I1  The  Officer  Selection Brief  ( O S B )  
reviewed by the CY97C board reflected a duty tile of  "Lead, C-17 

. 

Flexible  Sustainment  TeamP  (this is  the  title  the  applicant 
wants), effective 9 June 1997. The top Officer Performance Report 
(OPR), which closed on 2 0   April 1997, had a duty title of  "Lead, 
C-17 International Programs Team.'! 

The  proposed  PRF  has  alterations  in  Sections  I11  and  IV.  In 
Section 111, the duty title is IILead, C-17  Flexible Sustainment 
Team" and the Key Duties, Tasks, Responsibilities block has been 
changed entirely.  In Section IV, bullets 5, 6  and  7 have been 
rearranged and/or reworded.  The overall promotion recommendation 
is still llPromote. 

The  Personnel  Data  System  (PDS) at  one  time  (at  least  until 
1 0   June  1997)  contained  a  duty  history  entry  of  "Lead, C-17 
Software  Integration  Team,11 effective  2 1   April  1997.  The  PDS 
currently  reflects  a  duty  entry  of  "Lead,  C-17  Flexible 
Sustainment Team/  effective 2 1  April 1997. 
Applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of,AFI  3 6 -  
2401. However, on 5 February 1998, the Evaluation Reports Appeal 
Board  returned  the  appeal  without  action  because  the  MLRB 
president did not fully concur. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The Chief, Reports &  Queries Team, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, reviewed the 
case and explains why she believes the contested PRF has the duty 
title it does.  Recommendation is deferred to AFPC/DPPPA. 

A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. 
The  Chief, Appeals  &  SSB Branch, HQ  AFPC/DPPPA, also evaluated 
this appeal and indicates, it  is apparent when the shell for the 
PRF was generated, it had  "Lead, C-17 Software Integration Team" 
as the applicant's current duty title.  What  is not explained in 
the senior rater's letter is why he did not change the duty title 
to reflect the new title and job description to match that of the 
"Lead,  C-17  Flexible  Sustainment  Team"  as  was  his  right  and 
obligation to do. The current bullet statements in Section IV of 
the  PRF  are  not  erroneous and  are  based  on  all  the  duties  he 
performed up until the day his PRF was written. In fact, one of 
the bullet statements applicant wants inserted was taken from his 
20 April 1995 OPR. In other words, the information was available 
to the senior rater at the time the PRF was prepared despite the 
incorrect duty  title. The  senior rater's letter does  not  even 
discuss why he  felt the need to change  [the comments in Section 
IVI ; he only addresses the duty title and job description issue. 
The  MLRB  president  stated  the  changes  in  [Section I111  do  not 
warrant the changes to  [Section IV] since t h e   desired changes are 
not  new  information  that  was  not  otherwise  available  to  t h e  
senior rater when he originally prepared the PRF. The author does 
not  believe  the  contested  PRF  is  inaccurate and  finds no  clear 

2 

9 8-0043 6 

evidence  it  negatively. impacted  the  applicant's  promotion 
opportunity. Denial is therefore recommended. 

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant reviewed the evaluations and counters that he was never 
assigned  or  performed  the  duties  as  IILead,  C-17  Software 
Integration Tearn.I1 This input was put  into his records in error 
vice  the  job  he  was  assigned  and  performed  as  "Lead,  C-17 
Flexible Sustainment Team."  It is unjust that he should have to 
bear  the  burden  caused  by  multiple  administrative  errors 
especially when  he  notified  his  superiors  immediately  when  he 
found the error. He explains why the bullets in Section IV should 
be  changed. The  intent of  this appeal is to correct a PRF that 
was  written  for a  job  he  never  had, that  contained  iqccurate 
information, and that did not give him credit for the job he did 
have. He provides two OPRs which he believes justifies replacing 
the PRF and giving him SSB consideration. 

A copy of applicant's complete response, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit F. 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing 

1. 
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. We 
noted  the  supporting  statement  from  the  senior  rater  and  the 
partial  concurrence  from  the  MLRB  president.  Based  on  the 
available evidence, it appears that Section 111 of the contested 
PRF does reflect an incorrect duty title and job description. We 
agree that the information contained in Section IV of the revised 
PRF  should  have  been  known  to  the  senior  rater  as  the  MLRB 
president  indicates. However, we  believe  the possibility  exists 
that the incorrect duty title may have caused the senior rater to 
inadvertently overlook  factors he  may  have  otherwise emphasized 
in Section IV.  Therefore, in order to offset any possibility of 
an injustice, we conclude that this applicant should be given SSB 
consideration for the CY97C board with the reaccomplished PRF in 
his records. 

98-00436 

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: 

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force 
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that: 

a.  The  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF), AF  Form  709, 
reviewed  by  the  Calendar Year  1997C  (CY97C) Lieutenant  Colonel 
Board be declared void. 

b.  The attached PRF reflecting a duty title of  "Lead, C-17 
Flexible Sustainment Teamii be  inserted in his Officer Selection 
Folder. 

It is further recommended that his records, to include the above 
referenced  PRF,  be  considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of 
lieutenant  colonel by  a  Special  Selection Board  f o r   the  CY97C 
Board. 

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 

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

The 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D. 
Exhibit E. 
Exhibit F. 

DD Form 149, dated 6 Feb 98, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, dated 24 Mar 98. 
Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 20 Apr 98. 
Letter, AFBCMR, dated 4 May 98. 
Letter, Applicant, dated 5 May 98, w/atchs. 

VAN GASBECK 

4 

98-0043 6 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, DC 

‘JAN 1 5  ’1993 

Office of the Assistant Secretary 

AFBCMR 98-00436 

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: 

e Department of the Air Force relating t 
be corrected to show that: 

-2 

a.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, reviewed by the 
Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C) Lieutenant Colonel Board be, and hereby is, declared void. 

b.  The attached PRF reflecting a duty title of “Lead, C- 17 Flexible Sustainment Team” 

be inserted in his Officer Selection Folder. 

It is fiuther directed that his records, to include the above referenced PRF, be considered 
for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY97C 
Board. 

f i f i  

Director 
Air Force Review Boards Agency 

Attachment: 
Reaccomplished PRF 

Y