. 

9

.

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01312 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

kit  1 4  1998 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
1.  The Discrepancy Memorandum from AFPC/DPPBRl be  removed from 
his Officer Selection Record  (OSR). 

The  citations  for  the  Meritorious  Service  Medal  (MSM), 
2. 
Defense Meritorious  Service Medal  (DMSM) and  DMSM,  lst Oak  Leaf 
Cluster  (1OLC) be added to his OSR. 

3.  He  be  considered  for promotion to  the  grade  of  colonel by 
Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1997 (CY97) Central 
Colonel Board. 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

On 30 March 1998, he requested a copy of -promotion folder as 
the  records met  the  97B colonels board.  Discrepancy report on 
top of his records stated "MSM 10LC was not in PDS".  He states 
he  does  not  have  a  MSM  1OLC.  Also,  MSM,  DMSM  and  DMSM  lOLC 
citations were not in -folder. 

In  support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  a 
memorandum from HQ AFPC/DPPPBRl dated 3  December 1997, and copies 
of the citations for the MSM, DMSM, and DMSM, 1OLC. 

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 
The applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the 
grade of lieutenant colonel. 

Applicant  was  considered  and  not  selected  for promotion to  the 
grade of colonel by the CY97B Central Colonel Board. 

OPR profile since 1991, follows: 

PERIOD ENDING 

EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL 

98-01312 

1 Jun 91 
17 Mar 92 
17 Mar 93 
17 Mar 94 
17 Mar 95 
2 Aug 95 
2 Aug 96 
21 Jan 97 

Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 
Meets Standards 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

The  Chief,  Promotion,  Evaluation  and  Recognition  Division, 
AFPC/DPPP, reviewed the application and states that the fact the 
discrepancy  letter was  filed in 
record would  actually have 
been considered a "plus" by the CY97B selection board.  While it 
is  true  the  applicant  has  never  been  awarded  an  MSM,  loLC, 
removal  of  the  discrepancy  letter  would  not  warrant  SSB 
consideration.  They further state the citations for the award of 
the MSM,  DMSM, and  DMSM,  1OLC the applicant claim were missing 
from his  OSR when  he was  considered for promotion by  the CY97B 
board  were  filed  in his  OSR when  his  records met  the board  in 
December -. 
Specifically,  the  MSM  was  filed  15  September 
1988, the DMSM was filed 11 February 1985, and the DMSM, lOLC was 
filed  3  August 
Therefore,  SSB  consideration  is  not 
warranted,  as  the  citations were  present  for  the  CY97B board's 
review  and  were  factored  accordingly  into  their  promotion 
assessment  of  the  applicant.  Based  on  evidence provided,  they 
recommend denial of applicant's  request. 

A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and  states that the 
basis  of  his request for SSB consideration is the  result of an 
unfair  review  of  the  OSR  and  nonselection  for promotion.  The 
AFPC/DPPP  memorandum  states that  a  discrepancy  letter  filed  in 
his record would actually have been considered a plus.  He states 
that this may have been true several years ago when competition 
was not as stiff.  In summary, he states that fair consideration 
of records for his OSR promotion review can only occur at a SSB 
with erroneous discrepancy report removed and all award citations 
included. 
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit E. 

  . 

*

.

98-01312 

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.  We 
took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the 
merits  of  the  case;  however,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and 
recommendation of the Air Force and adopt their rationale as the 
basis  for  the  conclusion  that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the 
victim  of  an error or injustice.  Therefore, in  the  absence of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  find  no  compelling  basis  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  10 November  1998, under  the provisions of 
AFI 36-2603: 

Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair 
Mr. Jackson A. Diamond, Member 
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Member 
Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner  (without vote) 

T h e   following documentary evidence was considered: 

Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 6 May 98, w/atchs. 
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 3 Jun 98. 
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 22 Jun 98. 
Exhibit E. Applicant's Response, 15 Jul 98, w/atchs. 

CHARLENE M. BRADLEY 
Panel Chair 

d 

D E P A R T M E N T  OF  T H E  A I R   FORCE 

_ -  

H E A D Q U A R T E R S   A I R   F O R C E   P E R S O N N E L C E N T E R  

R A N D O L P H  A I R   F O R C E   B A S E  T E X A S  

0 3  JUN 

MEMORANDUM FOR  AFBCMR 

FROM:  HQ AFPCDPPP 

550 C Street West, Suite 8 
Randolph AFB TX  78 150-47 10 

Requested Action.  The applicant requests Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by 

central colonel selection board with a corrected officer 

the CY97B (8 Dec 97 
selection record (OSR). 

Basis for Request.  The applicant contends his OSR was erroneous when it met the P0697B 

central board because it contained a discrepancy memorandum from HQ AFPCDPPBRI 
indicating a missing entry in the Personnel Data System (PDS) for the award of a Meritorious 
Service Medal,  1” Oak Leaf Cluster (MSM, 1 OLC).  He also contends the citations for the 
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), Defense Meritorious Service Medal (DMSM), and DMSM, 
1  Oak Leaf Cluster (1 OLC), were missing from his OSR. 

Recommendation.  Deny. 

Facts and Comments. 

a.  The application is timely.  Application under AFI 36-240 1, Correcting Officer 

and Enlisted Evaluation Reports, would not be appropriate because the issues addressed in the 
applicant’s appeal are not within the purview of that directive.  The applicant has one 
nonselection to the grade of colonel by the 

board. 

b.  The governing directive is AFI 36-250 1, Officer’ Promotions and Selective 

Continuation,  1  Mar 96. 

’c.  In support of his appeal, the applicant includes a copy of a memorandum from 
HQ AFPCDPPPBRl dated 3 Dec 97 and copies of the citations for the MSM, DMSM, and 
DMSM, 1OLC. 

d.  The applicant contends the “Discrepancy report” (HQ AFPCDPPBRl 

memorandum, dated 3 Dec 97), was erroneously filed  in his OSR.  The discrepancy report 
indicated the award of an MSM/lOLC and he has never been awarded an MSWIOLC.  He 
requests the discrepancy report be removed from his OSR and he receive SSB consideration 
for promotion to the grade of colonel by th 

oard.  We would like to point out to the 

. 

I ‘   , 

L 

board, that the fact the di 
considered a “plus” by t 
been awarded an MSM, IOLC, removal of the discrepancy letter would not warrant SSB 
consideration. 

letter was filed in his record would actually have been 
selection board.  While it is true the applicant has never 

- -  

e.  The applicant believes the citations for the award of the MSM, DMSM, and 
DMSM, lOLC were missing from his OSR when he was considered for promotion by the 

ard.  However, the documents he claims were missing from his OSR were filed in 
en his records met the board in Dec 97.  Specifically, the MSM was filed 15 Sep 

88, the DMSM was filed I 1  Feb 85, and the DMSM, IOLC, was filed 3 
SSB c‘onsideration is not warranted, as the citations were present for the 

Summary.  Based on the evidence provided, our recommendation of denial is appropriate, 

and SSB consideration is not warranted. 

Ch, Promotion, Evaluatio;  and Recognition Div 
Director of Personnel Program Management 

Col, USAF