AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AUG  1 4  

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00545 
COUNSEL:  None 

HEARING DESIRED:  No 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 
1.  His  Officer  Selection Brief  (OSB) reviewed  by  the  Calendar 
Year 1997  (CY97C) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be corrected 
to show his duty title as Chief, Beam/Fire Control Branch instead 
of Beam/Fire Control Branch. 
2.  The number of  awards for the Meritorious Service Medal  (MSM) 
be corrected to reflect two instead of one. 

He  be  considered for promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant 

3 .  
colonel by Special Selection Board  (SSB) for the CY97C board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
His  records  did  not  reflect  this  information  and  he  was  not 
selected  for promotion  to  lieutenant colonel.  He  reviewed  his 
records  in May  1997 through June  1997 and  worked  with  his  unit 
records personnel to correct all of the identified errors.  A copy 
of the missing decoration was  faxed to AFPC on 24 June 1997.  A 
copy  of  the  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  for  the  period 
closing 14 May  1997 had  to be  faxed to AFPC, but  it was of poor 
quality.  Despite these efforts, corrections were not made.  This 
gave the promotion board inaccurate impressions and input to their 
decision. 
In support of his  appeal, the applicant  submitted a  letter from 
the  Executive  Officer  of  his  unit  to  help  clarify  the  actions 
taken to correct his records before the promotion board convened. 

-- 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The applicant is currently serving in the grade of major.  He has 
one  nonselection  for promotion  by  the  CY97C  Lieutenant  Colonel 
Selection Board. 

The  Officer  Selection Brief  (OSB) reviewed  by  the  CY97C  board 
contained the notation that he had been awarded an MSM in 1992 and 

the Air  Force Commendation Medal  (AFCM) in  1985.  The contested 
MSM  was not reflected on the OSB.  His duty title was  listed as 
Beam/Fire Control Branch. 

Following is a resume of his OPRs since promotion to major. 

PERIOD ENDING 
14 May 1994 
14 May 1995 
14 May 1996 
*  14 May 1997 

Note: *  OPR in question 

OVERALL EVALUATION 
Meets Standard  (MS) 

MS 
MS 
MS 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  the 
application and stated the applicant's duty history was incorrect 
and has since been corrected in the Personnel Data System  (PDS). 
However,  the  promotion  recommendation  form  (PRF) and  the  OPR 
reflected a duty title of  "Chief, Beam Control Branch."  The word 
llFirell is missing from both documents.  He has provided no source 
documents to support the duty history entry in the PDS.  They have 
forwarded  an  appeal  to  AFPC/DPAISl  for  authority  determination. 
Regardless of that determination, DPPPA does not support promotion 
reconsideration on this issue. 
Regarding his  contention of  the  award of  the MSM,  1st Oak  Leaf 
Cluster  (MSM loLC), again the applicant is correct.  However, the 
citation  was  filed  in  the  Officer  Selection  Record  (OSR)  on 
26 June  1997.  They  pointed  out  that  evidence  of  a  decoration 
within the OSR  speaks to the decoration itself.  Even though the 
MSM  1OLC was not  accounted  for on the  OSB,  it  was  in  his  OSR. 
Therefore, the board members were knowledgeable the decoration was 
given.  The applicant contends the OPR the hoard reviewed was of 
poor quality and had to be faxed from AFMC.  DPPPA stated that in 
reviewing the applicant's record, they inquired as to the date the 
OPR arrived and learned it arrived on 9 July 1997, well in advance 
of the board convening date.  It also has a stamp of 21 July 1997 
indicating that this document was considered by the board.  As to 
the clarity of the copy, they stated that while it is a fax copy, 
there is no text on this document that is illegible.  Based on the 
evidence, they recommended denial. 
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.  As  of 
this date, no response has been received in 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 
warranting promotion reconsideration by a Special Selection Board. 
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 persuaded that he 
was provided full and  fair consideration by  the selection board. 
In coming to this conclusion, we make the following observations: 

a.  Applicant  contends that  his  duty  title  was  incorrect  on 
the  Officer  Selection Brief  (OSB).  The  letter  from  the  former 
Airborne Laser System Program Office Executive Officer indicating 
that  corrections  were  made  in  May  1997  at  the  local  level  to 
applicant's duty title is duly noted.  However, we note that the 
14 May  1997 Officer  Performance Report  (OPR) and  the  Promotion 
Recommendation Form  (PRF) prepared for the CY97 board both reflect 
the  duty  title  of  Chief,  Beam  Control  Branch  versus  Chief, 
Beam/Fire  Control  Branch. 
Further,  while  we  note  that  the 
contested OSB entry does not  contain the word 
Chief,'! it  does 
contain the word  IlFireIl  which is not reflected on either the OPR 
or PRF.  In view of these discrepancies, and with no authorizing 
documentation to reflect that changes were odficially made to the 
duty title, we  find no compelling basis upon which to change the 
duty title from what is reflected on the OPR and PRF. 

b.  Secondly, the Air Force acknowledges that the citation for 

the MSM,  loLC, was  not  a part  of  applicant's Officer Selection- 
Record  (OSR);  however,  the  award  was  reflected  on  the  OSB, 
therefore, the board was aware of its existence.  We note that the 
central boards evaluate the entire officer record and it is highly 
unlikely the missing citation was the cause of his nonselection. 
After  reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  we  are  compelled  to 
conclude that this omission constituted a harmless error. 

c.  Lastly, with  respect  to  applicant's contention regarding 
the OPR  closing 14 May  1997, we  note  that  the report, albeit  a 
faxed  copy,  was  in  his  record  when  is  was  reviewed  by  the 
selection board. 

In summary, we do not find applicant’s numerous assertions, in and 
by  themselves, sufficiently persuasive  to override the rationale 
provided  by  the  Air  Force. 
Therefore,  we  agree  with  the 
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt the rational expressed 
as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  failed  to 
sustain  his  burden  of  establishing  the  existence  of  either  an 
error  or  an  injustice  warranting  favorable  action  on  these 
requests. 

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  23  June  1998,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI 
36-2603: 

Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Panel Chair 
Mr. Dana J. Gilmour, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 21 Feb 98, with atchs. 
Exhibit B.  Applicant’s Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 17 Mar 98. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 30 Mar 98. 

WAYNE- R. GRACIE 
Panel Chair 

P 

AFBCMR 98-00545 

- .- 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR  FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS AIR  FORCE PERSONNEL CENTER 

RANDOLPH AIR  FORCE  BASE TJZXAB 

17 MAR98 

MEMORANDUN FOR AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPC/DPPPA 

550 C Street West,  Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78150-4710 

SUBJECT: 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests promotion reconsideration by the CY97C (21 Jul 

97) lieutenant colonel board (P0597C). 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends there were errors on his officer selection brief 

(OSB) in spite of his efforts prior to the board to get them corrected.  We address each separately 
below. 

Recommendation. Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a. The application is timely filed.  Application under AFT 36-240 1, Correcting 

Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, would not have been appropriate. 

b.  The governing directive is AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective 

Continuation, 1 Mar 96. 

c.  The applicant has one nonselectioa by the P0597C board. 

d.  8 Sep 96 Duty History Entry.  The applicant contends this duty history entry did 
not indicate “Chief, B e d i r e  Control Branch” but merely “ B e d i r e  Control Branch.’’  The 
applicant is correct.  We note the personnel data system (PDS) has since been corrected to reflect 
the duty title.  However, we note the promotion recommendation form @RF) -and 
his 14 May 97 officer performance report (OPR) reflect a duty title of “Chief, Beam Control 
Branch.”  The word “Fire” is missing from both documents. The applicant has provided no 
source documents to support the duty history entry in the PDS.  We believe the entry is 
inaccurate as both the PRF and OPR were issued within two months of the board.  Therefore, we 
are forwarding the appeal to HQ AFPC/DPAIS 1 for authority determination.  Regardless of their 
determination, we do not support promotion reconsideration on this issue. 

9800545 

e.  Number of Decorations.  The applicant contends the OSB did not reflect his 

award of the Meritorious Service Medal, la Oak Leafcluster (MSM 1OLC).  Again, the 
applicant is correct.  However, the citation was fded in the officer selection record (OSR) 26 Jun 
96.  As a matter of note, the citation has still not been updated in the PDS.  Evidence of a 
decoration within the OSR speaks to the decoration itself, not what the citation may or may not 
reveal.  Even though the MSM 1 OLC was not accounted for on the OSB, it was in evidence 
before the board.  Therefore, the board members were knowledgeable the decoration was given 
which is the ultimate purpose of including decorations in the promotion selection process.  Since 
the board members were aware of the decoration, it was factored into the promotion evaluation. 
We do not support promotion reconsideration on this issue. 

f.  14 May 97 OPR  The applicant contends this OPR was not received fiom 

S M C M F  in time for the board.  He states, “Consequently, promotion board had to obtain fax 
copy of the OPR &om AFMC, which was a poor copy.”  We have reviewed the applicant’s 
record and inquired as to when the fax copy of the 14 May 97 OPR arrived at HQ AFPC.  We 
learned the copy arrived on 9 July 97-well  in advance of the board convening date.  The OPR 
also has a date stamp of 21 Jul97 stamped on the front which indicates to us that this document 
was, indeed, considered by the board.  As to the clarity of the copy-while  it is a fax copy, there 
is no text on this document that is illegible.  There is no basis for reconsideration on this issue. 

SUmmary . Based on the evidence provided, we recommend denial. 

Directorate of Pers Program Mgt 

2 

9800545 
.. .. .. .  .-  .