AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER .OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00628 

COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

E B  I 9  13% 

APPLICANT REOUESTS THAT: 

He be  considered  for promotion  to the grade  of  lieutenant  colonel 
by  Special Selection Board  (SSB) for the Calendar Year  (CY) 1997C 
Lieutenant Colonel Board, with the Officer Performance Report  (OPR) 
closing  2 June  1997  included  in his  record, and  with  a  corrected 
primary Air Force Specialty Code  (PAFSC). 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
The  selection  board  did  not  review  his  most  current  OPR. 
His 
superiors had  every  intention of having  this OPR  entered  into his 
record, but due to circumstances beyond his control it did not make 
it to the board. 

In addition to  the  overlooked OPR, his primary AFSC was  incorrect 
on  his  selection  Report  on  Individual  Personnel  (RIP). 
AFSC 
BO11B3N, bomber pilot, squadron operations maintenance officer, had 
been  added  to  his  record  for  some  unknown  reason.  During  the 
screening of  his  records, this was  overlooked by  many, to  include 
himself. 

I 

In  support  of  his  request,  applicant  provided  his  personal 
statement,  supporting  statements  from  the  indorser  on  the  OPR 
closing  2 June  1997,  and  the Chief  of  the  Stan/Eval Division, and 
an OER/OPR suspense record.  (Exhibit A) 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS) reflects 
applicant's  Total Active  Federal Military  Service Date  (TAFMSD) as 
18 April  1982. 
He  has  served  on  continuous  active  duty,  was 
integrated  into  the  Regular  component  on  11  September  1989,  and 
progressively promoted to the grade of major. 

A resume of applicant’s OERs/OPRs follows: 

. ,  

PERIOD CLOSING 

OVERALL EVALUATION 

7 Apr 83 
13 Jun 83 
13 Feb 84 
13 Aug 84 
13 Feb 85 
7 Jan 86 
24 Oct 86 
24 Oct 87 
24 Oct 88 
21 Feb 89 
1 Feb 90 
1 Feb 91 
1 Feb 92 
1 Dec 92 
1 Dec 93 
29 Jul 94 
29 Jul 95 
23 Dec 95 
23 Dec 96 
2 Jun 97 
3 Mar 98 

. 

* 
# 
** 

Education/Training Report  (TR) 
TR 
TR 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1  (W/LOE) 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
1-1-1 
Meets Standards  (MS) 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 
MS 

*  Top report in file when considered and not selected for promotion 
by the CY97C Lt Col Board which convened on 21 July 1997. 
#  -  Contested  report. 
The  report  was  signed  by  the  rater  on 
27 June 1997, and by the additional rater/reviewer on 14 July 1997. 
* *   -  Top  report  in  file  when  considered  and  not  selected  for 
promotion by the CY98B Lt Col Board which convened on 1 June 1998. 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The Appeals  and  SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA,  reviewed  this  application 
and recommended denial.  Their comments, in part, follow. 

By  regulation, OPRs on extended active duty  (EAD) officers are due 
to  HQ  AFPC/DPPBR3  (Headquarters Air  Force  Personnel  Center)  no 
signed 
later than 60 days after closeout. 
by  the  additional  rater/reviewer  on  14  Jul  97.  The  additional 
rater/reviewer returned the report “expeditiously” to Eglin AFB and 
claims the OPR  was  filed in the  applicant’s unit  personnel  record 
group  (UPRG) on 18 Jul 97.  It is apparent the applicant‘s military 
personnel  flight  (MPF) processed  the  OPR  through  normal  channels 
because the report was not filed in the applicant’s OSR at HQ AFPC 
until  14  days  later. 
Although  the  additional  rater/reviewer 
contends he intended to have the OPR in the applicant’s record for 
Had the raters of the report 
the CY97C board, 

DPPPA noted the OPR was 

DPPPA did not agree. 

2 

AFBCMR  98-00628 

. 

b 

"flagged" the OPR properly, personnel at the applicant's  MPF would 
have taken extra measures to ensure it was processed expeditiously, 
for  example,  "faxed," to  AFPC  in  time  to  be  considered  by  the 
promotion board.  In  addition, the  applicant did  not  provide  any 
support from the MPF claiming they "dropped the ball" and failed to 
expedite the report.  Since the applicant's  OPR  was due and timely 
filed  in  his  OSR  on  1  Aug  97,  DPPPA  concludes  the  report  was 
processed in direct accordance with the governing directive and SSB 
consideration is not warranted. 

DPPPA  is  confused  by  applicant's  request  regarding  the  erroneous 
DAFSC on the "selection R I P . "   They assume he  is referring to the 
officer  selection brief  (OSB).  After  careful  review of  the  OSB, 
they did not find any DAFSC entry "BO11B3N."  The most recent entry 
in the DAFSC column is "Q11F3Y." 

Each  eligible  officer  considered  by  the  CY97C  board  received 
detailed  instructions for  review of  their preselection briefs  and 
associated records.  If the applicant believed  his accomplishments 
over  the  last  six  months  were  critical  to  his  promotion 
consideration,  he  could  have  detailed  those  accomplishments  in  a 
letter  to  the  board  president.  However,  DPPPA  did  not  find  any 
record the applicant wrote such a letter to the board president and 
strongly  recommend  denying  the  applicant's  request  for  SSB 
consideration on this issue. 

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

Applicant  reiterated  his  contentions  that  both  his  rater  and 
reviewer had  intended  for  the  OPR  closing  2  Jun  97 to  be  in  his 
records. 

He further stated that in his letter attached to his application he 
stated his p r i m a r y   AFSC was  incorrect not his  d u t y   AFSC  as  stated 
in  the  advisory  opinion.  The  pre-selection  brief  he  received  in 
Jun  97 had  his  correct  duty  AFSC;  however,  his  primary  AFSC  was 
incorrect (copy attached) . 
As  to his  not  writing  a  letter  to  the board  president,  applicant 
stated he has always trusted the system to work for him and did not 
see  a  need  to  write  a  letter  based  on  that  foundation. 
In 
addition, he  was  satisfied with  his  record  and  had  no  excuses  to 
argue in his behalf. 

Applicant's  response is at Exhibit E. 

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. 
BY 
regulation,  the  OPR  closing  2  June  1997  was  not  required  to  be 
filed in the applicant‘s records until  60 days after  the closeout 
date.  Therefore,  it was  not  required  to be  filed  in his  Officer 
Selection  Record  (OSR) for  consideration by  the  C Y 9 7 C   Lieutenant 
Colonel  Board,  which  convened  on  21  July  1997.  We  reviewed  the 
statement provided by  the  additional rater/reviewer on  the  2 June 
1997  OPR,  who  indicated  it  was  his  intention that  the  report  be 
included  in  the  applicant’s  record  considered  by  the  cited 
selection board.  However, the convening dates of selections boards 
are  widely  publicized. 
Therefore,  it  was  incumbent  upon  the 
members of the applicant‘s rating chain to follow the processing of 
the OPR to insure that it reached his selection folder prior to the 
convening  of  the  promotion  board,  if  they  desired  it  to  be 
considered.  This  was  especially  critical  in  view  of  the  short 
period of time between the date the report closed and the convening 
date  of  the promotion  board.  Based  on  the  evidence  provided,  we 
are not persuaded that the processing of  the contested report took 
an  inordinate amount of time or that it was processed  contrary to 
the  governing  regulation.  We  also  noted  applicant‘s  contention 
that  his  primary  AFSC  was  incorrect  on  his  “selection  Report  on 
Individual Personnel.”  However, primary A F S C s   are not reflected on 
officer  selection  briefs  reviewed  by  promotion  selection boards, 
only  the member’s  duty  AFSCs  are  shown.  Based  on  the  foregoing, 
and  in  the  absence  of  persuasive  evidence  that  the  applicant‘s 
records  were  improperly  constituted  when  he  was  considered  for 
promotion by  the  CY97C  Lieutenant  Colonel Board,  we  conclude that 
there  is  no  basis  upon  which  to  recommend  granting  the  relief 
sought in this application. 

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  6 October  1998,  under  the  provisions  of  A F I  
36-2603: 

4 

AFBCMR  98- 00628 

Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair 
Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member 
Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. 
Exhibit B. 
Exhibit C. 
Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Mar 98. 
Exhibit E. 

DD Form 149, dated 24 Feb 98, w/atchs. 
Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 12 Mar 98, w/atch. 

Letter, Applicant, dated 3 Apr 98, w/atchs. 

Panel Chair 

5 

AFBCMR 98-00628 

-.