AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-00472
c _L.
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
Applicant requests that the Officer Selection Brief (OSB)
prepared for consideration by the CY97C (P0597C) Central
Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 21 Jul 97, be amended
in the "Joint Reporting Category" Section to read "Other JDA;"
and, he be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration with
his corrected record. Applicant's submission is at Exhibit A.
The appropriate Air Force offices evaluated applicant's request
and provided advisory opinions to the Board recommending the
application be denied (Exhibit C). The advisory opinions were
forwarded to the applicant for review and response (Exhibit D).
Applicant's response to the advisory opinions is at Exhibit E.
We noted the applicant's request that the OSB prepared for
consideration by the CY97C Central Lieutenant Colonel Board,
which convened on 21 Jul 97, be amended in the "Assignment
History" Section to reflect the duty title of I1Executive Officer,
Conventional Operations and Training Division," with an effective
date of 26 Oct 94, rather than Executive Officer, Training and
Tactics Division, was corrected administratively and the
applicant was scheduled for consideration by an SSB for this
board. Therefore, no further action is contemplated concerning
this request.
After careful consideration of applicant's request that the OSB
prepared for consideration by the CY97C (P0597C) Central
Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 21 Jul 97, be amended
in the "Joint Reporting Category" Section to-read "Other JDA" and
he be given SSB consideration with his corrected record, as well
as the available evidence of record, we find insufficient
evidence of error or injustice to warrant corrective action. The
facts and opinions stated in the advisory opinions appear to be
based on the evidence of record and have not been adequately
rebutted by applicant. Absent persuasive evidence applicant was
denied rights to which entitled, appropriate regulations were not
followed, or appropriate standards were not applied, we find no
basis to disturb the existing record.
Accordingly, applicant's request is denied.
The Board staff is directed to inform applicant of this decision.
Applicant should also be informed that this decision is final and
will only be reconsidered upon the presentation of new relevant
evidence which was not reasonably available at the time the
application was filed.
Members of the Board Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Mr. Terry A.
Yonkers, and Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler considered this application
on 1 Sep 98 in accordance with the provisions of Air. Force
Instruction 36-2603 and the governing statute, 10 U.S.C. 1552.
c-
BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
Panel Chair
Exhibits:
A. Applicant's DD Form 149
B. Available Master Personnel Records
C. Advisory Opinions
D.
E. Applicant's Response
SAF/MIBR Ltr Forwarding Advisory Opinions
. .
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”...
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 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...
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...
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. ...
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 2 AFBCMR 98-00545 APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 10 March 1998 for review and comment within 30 days. Essentially, applicant contends that as a result of errors in his records, the Calendar Year 1997 (CY97) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board was given an inaccurate impression of his record; however, after reviewing the evidence of record, we are...
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...
As they have stated, the same errors existed on his P0597C OSB, and the applicant has not explained why he took no action when he received his OPB for that board to get the errors corrected. They noted that with the exception of the 1 Apr 94 error (CMHQ vs. W/B), the same errors the applicant is now pointing out were also in existence at the time of the P0494A board as well. Even though they were in error on the OSB, they were correct on the OPRs.
A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Reports and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the OPRs and the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) accurately reflected the duty titles contained on source document OPRs for duty history entries of 960601 and 980206. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his...
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. c. Applicant claims a “gap between the effedive 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...