RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01005
INDEX CODE 131.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
The Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) for the 2 October 1996 entry
on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the Calendar Year
1997C (CY97C) Lieutenant Colonel Board be changed to “B11F3Z.”
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His most recent Officer Performance Report (OPR) and his Promotion
Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the CY97C board list his DAFSC
as “B11F3Z.” The OSB lacks the “B” Operations Officer prefix.
In support, he provides the OSB, OPR and PRF in question.
A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant was considered but not selected by the Calendar Year
1997C (CY97C) Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 21 July
1997.
The 2 October 1996 duty entry on the CY97C OSB contained a DAFSC of
“11F3Z.” The PRF and top OPR reviewed by the CY97C board reflected a
DAFSC of “B11F3Z.”
Before the CY97C board convened, the Personnel Data System (PDS)
reflected a DAFSC of “11F3Z” for the 2 October 1996 entry. The PDS
currently reflects a DAFSC of “B11F3Z” for the 2 October 1996 duty
entry.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Reports & Queries Team, HQ AFPC/DPAIS1, states that, based
on the OPR, the 2 October 1996 duty entry should reflect a DAFSC of
“B11F3Z.” The PDS has been changed to reflect that.
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit C.
The Chief, Officer Promotion & Appointment Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, also
reviewed the appeal and states that applicant has sufficiently proven
that this DAFSC in the PDS was incorrect. This error has been
corrected. The applicant provides no evidence or information
suggesting that he took action to make the DAFSC correction prior to
the CY97C board. Also, before the board he was provided an Officer Pre-
Selection Brief (OPB) and in all likelihood the error was present on
this brief. Since this error probably occurred in April 1997, there
was ample time for the applicant to review his record to ensure it
correctly reflected his DAFSC. He also could have communicated this
error to the board via a letter, as was his right. Special Selection
Board (SSB) consideration should be denied.
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
18 May 1998 for review and comment within 30 days. 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. After a thorough review
of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not
persuaded that the OSB reviewed by the CY97C board should be amended.
The applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find
these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to
override the rationale provided by the Chief, Officer Promotion and
Appointment Branch. Furthermore, although the contested DAFSC did not
include the “B” prefix on the OSB, the promotion board was aware of it
because the DAFSC was accurately reflected on the PRF and the top OPR.
Therefore, we conclude this omission constitutes a harmless error
which does not warrant correction. While the applicant has not
specifically requested consideration by SSB for the CY97C board, in
view of the fact that we find no compelling basis for granting the
relief requested, we also conclude that SSB consideration is not
warranted.
_________________________________________________________________
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 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
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 Mar 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAIS1, dated 24 Apr 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 7 May 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 May 98.
DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
Panel Chair
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01005
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01005 INDEX CODE 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) for the 2 October 1996 entry on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C) Lieutenant Colonel Board be changed to...
A complete copy of this Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. applicant contends that The Chief, Officer Promotion and Appointment Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, states that the aeronautical/flying data reflected on his OSB is incorrect. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not persuaded that hisofficer Selection Brief 4 (OSB), reviewed by the Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, should be corrected...
We note that applicant's records have now been corrected to reflect his correct duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC), and duty titles during the contested time period; therefore, the only issue for this Board to decide is promotion consideration by a Special Selection Board (SSB). Therefore, we recommend his corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board for the CY97C board. There is no evidence any steps were taken to make a correction to the DAFSC or duty title from the...
The AF Form 2096 is changing the applicant's DAFSC to include the ItKtt prefix and changing his duty title to read I1Assistant Operations Officer, both effective 8 May 1997. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 13 April 1998 for review and response within 30 days. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant's submission, we are not...
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 contested PRF reflects an'bverall promotion...
DPPPA stated each officer eligible for promotion consideration by the CY97C board received an officer preselection brief (OPB) several months prior to the date the board convened in July 1997. It was the applicant’s responsibility to have the erroneous information corrected prior to the board or, as a minimum, to notify the Board of the erroneous duty titles on his OSB by letter prior to the board if he believed it important to his promotion consideration. Several months prior to the...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-01222
DPPPA stated each officer eligible for promotion consideration by the CY97C board received an officer preselection brief (OPB) several months prior to the date the board convened in July 1997. It was the applicant’s responsibility to have the erroneous information corrected prior to the board or, as a minimum, to notify the Board of the erroneous duty titles on his OSB by letter prior to the board if he believed it important to his promotion consideration. Several months prior to the...
The OPR closing 29 July 1995 with a DAFSC as “12F1F” should read “12F3F”; and the AAM was not listed on his records. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC DPPPA, reviewed this application and states that the applicant did not provide anything to convince them he made attempts prior to the CY97C board convened to correct the contested duty title omission on his OSB. From...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1998-00586
The OPR closing 29 July 1995 with a DAFSC as “12F1F” should read “12F3F”; and the AAM was not listed on his records. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC DPPPA, reviewed this application and states that the applicant did not provide anything to convince them he made attempts prior to the CY97C board convened to correct the contested duty title omission on his OSB. From...
The inconsistencies between the duty titles on his Office Performance Reports (OPRs) and those listed on his Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) prior to his consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the P0498B central board have been administratively corrected. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory...