AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
FEB 2 4 1999
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NUMBER: 98-01053
COUNSEL: NO
HEARING DESIRED: NO
APPLICANT REUUESTS THAT:
His duty history include a Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC)
of 11X1115M,11 as reflected on the Officer Performance Report (OPR)
closing 1 May 1990, and a duty title of 'ISquadron Safety
Officer/' effective 2 May 1989.
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The reasons the applicant believes the records to be in error or
unjust and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal are at
Exhibit A.
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the
grade of major (Date of Rank: 1 Apr 94).
He was considered but not selected for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) board,
which convened on 1 Jun 1998. The 1 May 1990 OPR referred to by
the applicant reflected a duty title of !IF-15 Aircraft
Commander,Il and listed I'Squadron Safety Officer1' as an additional
duty only. His duty history had been administratively corrected
in time so that the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the
CY98B board did include a duty entry of 2 May 1989 with the
requested DAFSC of I1X1115M. However, the duty title was !IF-15
Aircraft Commander,If rather than the requested duty title of
Wquadron Safety Officer .
The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this application,
extracted from the applicant's military records, are contained in
the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force.
Accordingly, there is no need to recite these facts in this
Record of Proceedings.
98-01053
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Reports & Queries Team, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, reviewed the
case and states that applicant's duty history should be updated
to reflect a new duty entry dated 2 May 1989 showing award of the
IrX1I prefix, and the Personnel Data System (PDS) has been so
updated. However, the Chief does not concur with amending the
duty title to reflect "Squadron Safety Officer1' until the 1 May
1990 OPR is successfully appealed/amended.
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, also evaluated
the appeal and concurs with AFPC/DPAISl. The applicant has not
formally requested correction of the 1 May 1990 OPR. Unless this
report is successfully appealed, adding the "Squadron Safety
Officer'l duty title to the 2 May 1989 duty history entry is not
appropriate. Only the primary duty title is entered into the
PDS, and "Squadron Safety Officerf1 was listed only as an
additional duty on the 1 May 1990 OPR. Absent an official appeal
of the OPR with sufficient support and documentation, no further
corrections are warranted.
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit D.
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the evaluations were forwarded to the
applicant on 15 Jun 98 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.
Applicant's request to have a duty entry of 2 May 89 with a DAFSC
of '1X1115M1t was administratively approved and implemented in time
for the CY98B board's review. As a result, the only issue
remaining for this Board's consideration is determining the
appropriate duty title for this entry. Although the applicant
requests a title of Itsquadron Safety Officer," he has provided no
evidence to justify this request. The 1 May 1990 OPR has a duty
title of !IF-15 Aircraft Commander, I' and lists "Squadron Safety
Officer" as an additional duty only. Using this performance
2
98-01053
report as a source document, HQ AFPC determined that "F-15
Aircraft Commanderll was the appropriate duty title for the 2 May
1989 entry. The applicant has provided no evidence refuting this
determination. We therefore agree with the recommendations of the
Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our
decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of
having suffered either an error or an injustice. In view of the
above and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, we find no
compelling basis to recommend granting this portion of the
applicant's request.
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 3 December 1998, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603 :
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicantls Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAISl, dated 11 May 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPAB, dated 28 May 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 15 Jun 98.
BARBARA A. WESTGATW
Panel Chair
3
98-01053
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...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the application and states that the OPB is sent to each eligible officer several months prior to a selection board. The letter forwarding each eligible officer their OPB specifically outlines each entry on the OPB and OSB and the appropriate offices of responsibility to contact to have this information corrected. They are not convinced these discrepancies...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00027 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) prepared for consideration by the CY97C (P0597C) and CY98B (P0598B) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, which convened on 21 Jul 97 and 1 Jun 98, be corrected; and, he be given Special Selection Board (SSB)...
His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the Calendar Year 1998 (CY98B) Major Promotion Board be corrected to show a correction to his Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) and Organization under the Assignment History block. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and states that HQ AFPC/DPAPS1 concurred with the applicant’s...
A copy of the complete Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed the case and indicated she would not be opposed to the applicant’s receiving SSB consideration by the CY98B board with the correct citation for the AFCM 2OLC filed in his officer selection record. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to...
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...
With regard to the applicant’s request to correct the Assignment History section on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the CY98B promotion board, we note that AFPC/DPAPS1 concurs with the applicant that the duty titles for 6 May 1991 and 1 October 1991 as reflects “Mechanical Engineer” are incorrect and should be deleted. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s complete submission, we are not persuaded that the Air Force Achievement Medal First Oak Leaf...
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...
I' A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed the appeal and indicates that the DAFSC for the 15 January 1995 duty history has been corrected to include the IrK1l prefix, which indicates the applicant is a qualified instructor pilot. The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, examined the application and states that the additional rater's letter does not warrant removing the contested OPR. A complete copy of...