RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02034
INDEX CODE: 131.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1997C (CY97C)
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The Aerial Achievement Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster, (AAM, 1OLC) was
awarded by Special Order SOG-037 on 25 June 1997, too late to have the
award included in his records for the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Central
Selection board. He learned of the award when it was presented on 25 June
1997.
In support of the appeal, applicant submits a copy of Special Order SOG-
037, dated 12 June 1997.
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
major.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel by the CY97C and CY98B Selection Boards.
Applicant was awarded the AAM, 1OLC, for the period 20 December 1995 to 20
December 1995 by Special Order SOG-037, dated 12 June 1997. The AAM, 1OLC,
was not required, by regulation, to be in his records at the time of the
CY97C board.
OPR profile since 1994, follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
02 Aug 94 Meets Standards
06 Oct 95 Meets Standards
31 Aug 96 Meets Standards
# 01 May 97 Meets Standards
## 03 Mar 98 Meets Standards
# Top report at time of CY97C board.
## Top report at time of CY98B board.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this
application and states that the applicant believes he was considered for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY97C board without the
citation for the AAM, 1OLC, in his officer selection record (OSR). They do
not agree. The citation for the decoration was filed in his OSR 20 May
1997, two months prior to the CY97C board. More importantly, the central
selection board record identification number is annotated in the upper
right hand corner of the citation, indicating it was considered by the
CY97C board. Although the decoration was not reflected on the CY97C
officer selection brief (OSB), the citation was filed in his OSR. As a
matter of fact, they note the citation was filed in the applicant’s OSR
prior to the special order being published which explains why it was not
included on the OSB. Since the board was aware the AAM, 1OLC, existed,
they are convinced they factored it into their promotion assessment of the
applicant. They, therefore, would be opposed to his receiving SSB
consideration on this issue. Based on the 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 Air Force evaluation and states the award
AFPC/DPPPA refers to was Special Order G-696, 7 May 1997. The award in
question is Special Order SOG-037, 12 June 1997 which was not in his OSR
for promotion consideration. Some confusion exists in that both medals
were awarded as the First Oak Leaf Cluster. Special order G-696 was later
amended to read “Second Oak Leaf Cluster.” To reiterate his DD Form 149,
SOG-037 was not in his OSR for the CY97C board. This was in part due to
the proximity of the issue date of the award (12 June 1997) to
the convening of the CY97C (21 July 1997) promotion board, and also because
he received (was made aware of) the award too late to ensure it was placed
in his OSR. This award is significant because it reflects the
unprecedented operational use of unique systems on the MH-53J PAVE LOW
Helicopter in a hostile environment and hazardous weather conditions on a
mission of national strategic importance. This crucial flight delivered
Admiral Leighton-Smith, Lt Gen Ryan, and their NATO counterparts into
Sarajevo for implementation of the Dayton Peace Accords Transition of
Authority Ceremony - after other agencies had failed to accomplish this
“must do” mission.
Applicant's complete response, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this
application and states that apparently the citation for the contested
decoration contained an error. It read “1st Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC)”
instead of “2nd Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC).” The applicant included only a
copy of Special Order SOG-037, dated 12 June 1997, that indicated the award
of the AAM, 1OLC, with his initial appeal. He did not mention an error had
occurred when the special order for his AAM, 2OLC, was published. As a
result, they concluded the AAM, 1OLC, had been filed in the applicant’s OSR
and, therefore, was present for the CY97C board’s review. They now agree
with the applicant and do not believe the CY97C central board had the
opportunity to review the AAM, 2OLC, citation; however, the citation was
not required to be filed until after the board convened on 21 June 1997.
They note the order was not prepared until 12 June 1994. AFI 36-2803, The
Air Force Awards and Decorations Program, 15 August 1997, paragraph 3.1,
states, decoration recommendations are entered into official channels
within 2 years and awarded within 3 years of the act, achievement, or
service performed. In addition, decoration citations must be forwarded
within 60 days of the date of the special order. In this instance, the
special order and citation were processed within the guidelines of the
governing directive and the citation should have been filed in the
applicant’s OSR no later than 11 August 1997, some three weeks after the
board convened. They, therefore, would be opposed to the Board directing
the applicant receive SSB consideration by the CY97C board since the
decoration was not required to be filed in his OSR until after the board
convened. The applicant contends he was made aware of the AAM, 2OLC, too
late to ensure the citation was appropriately filed in his OSR for the
CY97C board’s review. They do not agree. The applicant could have faxed
copies of the citation and special order to HQ AFPC/DPPBR1 for inclusion in
his
OSR. Furthermore, he could have written a letter to the CY97C board
president to ensure the board was aware of the accomplishments noted in the
decoration. They find no evidence he wrote such a letter.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states his basis for
appeal is the absence of an AAM from his OSR during the CY97C promotion
board. Initially, the AFPC Review Board incorrectly concluded that the
specified award was in his OSR for the promotion board. After a second
review, they agreed that the award was missing from his records. However,
they now say this was not an error, reference AFI 36-2803, Table 3.1, note
4; and instruct that he should have faxed the award to the board when he
received it on 25 June (five days after the board convened). Then they
state that he should have written a letter to the board president making
the board aware of this accomplishment. Prior to the board, his supervisor
counseled him that letters to the board president were perceived in a
negative manner, and that he should not write to the board. The AFPC
rationalizations do not justify denying him a fair chance at promotion. He
does not believe the responses from AFPC/DPPA reflect the core values of
the Air Force. Incorrect and legalistic answers, combined with 20/20
hindsight counseling are not valid reasons to deny his appeal.
Applicant's complete response is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this
application and states that while they acknowledge the contested citation
was missing from the applicant’s OSR, it was not required to be filed until
11 August 1997, some three weeks after the board convened on 21 July 1997
(their previous advisory erroneously cited 21 June 1997). That means the
applicant had almost an entire month prior to his promotion consideration
to fax a copy of the order and citation to HQ AFPC/DPPBR1 for inclusion in
his OSR. Although the contested citation was missing from his record, it
was not required to be there until August - therefore, his record was not
erroneous when it met the board.
A complete copy of the evaluation is attached at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states there have been
a lot of confusion regarding the facts in this case. However, HQ AFPC
finally agrees that the contested citation and order was not in his records
as he originally claimed. After reviewing the HQ AFPC response and
researching his documents, he determined that the date, 25 June 1997, he
claimed to have received the award was erroneous. He received the award on
24 July 1997, too late to fax the order and citation to the board, which
had already convened. This was his original and current point of
contention. He does not contest whether or not HQ AFPC was required to
have filed the citation before the board met. His request remains simply
to have his accurate and complete officer selection record reviewed by the
promotion board.
In support of his appeal, applicant submits a statement from HQ AFSOC/IG
stating the applicant was presented the AAM on 24 July 1997 and to the best
of their knowledge, this was the first time the applicant was made aware
that he would receive an award for his actions.
Applicant's complete response, with attachment, is attached at Exhibit I.
_________________________________________________________________
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 a probable error or an injustice warranting favorable action
on the applicant’s request for reconsideration for promotion to the grade
of lieutenant colonel by an SSB. Applicant originally contended that the
Aerial Achievement Medal, First Oak Leaf Cluster (AAM, 1OLC) awarded on
June 25, 1997, was received too late to have the award included in his
records for the CY97C Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board. After
further reflection, however, the applicant provides corroborative evidence
that the AAM, 1OLC, was awarded to him on July 24, 1997, and argues that it
was too late to fax the order and citation to the selection board. We
disagree. First, as noted by the Air Force, decoration citations must be
forwarded within 60 days of the date of the special order in accordance
with AFI 36-2803 (The Air Force Awards and Decorations Program), August 15,
1994, Table 3.1, note 4). [NOTE: There is a
typographical error in the HQ AFPC/DPPA advisory which reflects the
effective date of the applicable AFI as August 15, 1997, as opposed to
August 15, 1994.] Since the special order awarding the AAM, 1OLC, was not
published until May 7, 1997, the award could be filed in the applicant’s
records in early August 1997 without violating the applicable AFI. Since
this date was well after the adjournment of the selection board in
question, there was no requirement for the decoration to be before that
board. Secondly, if the applicant believed that the additional decoration
was crucial to his chance of selection for promotion, he had until the date
the selection board adjourned to fax the award to AFPC for filing into his
selection folder. As an aside, even assuming arguendo that decoration
should have been a matter of record for consideration by the CY97C
selection board, since the AAM, 2OLC, was on file in his records, it was
obvious to the selection board members that he had received the 1OLC.
Thus, in our view, whether or not the decoration was a matter of record is
for all practical purposes irrelevant and should not serve as a basis to
authorize reconsideration for promotion by an SSB.
_________________________________________________________________
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 8 April 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Panel Chair
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Ms. Gloria J. Williams, Examiner (without vote)
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 97, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 12 Aug 98, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Applicant’s Response, dated 8 Sept 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 10 Nov 98.
Exhibit F. Applicant’s Response, dated 7 Dec 98.
Exhibit G. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 3 Feb 99.
Exhibit H. Letters, AFBCMR, dated 31 Aug 98, 23 Nov 98 and
15 Feb 98.
Exhibit I. Applicant’s Response, dated 15 Feb 99, w/atch.
BARBARA A. WESTGATE
Panel Chair
The instructions specifically state, “Officers will not be considered by a Special Selection Board if, in exercising reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission in his/her records and could have taken timely corrective action”. The special order for the 2OLC is dated 25 August 1997, after the applicant’s second BPZ consideration by the CY97C board, but before the applicant’s in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) consideration by the CY98B board. They ask why, at...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01524 INDEX NUMBER: 107.00; 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Aerial Achievement Medals (AAMs), 4th and 5th Oak Leaf Clusters (OLCs), be included in his Officer Selection Record (OSR); the Citation for Award of the AAM (Basic) be included in his OSR; and that his record be...
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. 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...
DPPPA stated that both the Education/Training Report (TR) and MSM, 1OLC, were filed in the applicant’s Officer Selection Record (OSR) and considered by the P0597C central lieutenant colonel selection board. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and indicated that it ignores his contention that his pre-board records...
reviewed the application and stated that every Air Force member is responsible for ensuring their record is correct. As of this date, no response has been received in this office. The Air Force acknowledges the contested medals were not a part of applicant's record when it was considered by the CY97C selection board.
While the delay was not in violation of the applicable regulation, we believe that had it not been for the two-year backlog of awards the squadron had to deal with, the AAM would have been awarded sooner and placed in his record prior to the convening of the CY97C selection board. In view of the 3 97- 03 138 foregoing and in an effort to remove any possibility of an injustice to the applicant, we recommend that his record, to include the AAM for the period 3 June 1993 through 5...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02868 INDEX CODE: 131.00 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be considered for promotion to major by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C Major Board, with inclusion of the citation for the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM), 1st Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC), in his Officer Selection...
After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the two Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 5 July 1989 and 5 July 1990 should be voided and removed from his records; the Overseas Duty History portion of the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) should be changed; or, that a signed copy of the citation of the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) should be inserted into the OSR. Although the overseas duty history was not reflected on the...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-03198
After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that the two Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 5 July 1989 and 5 July 1990 should be voided and removed from his records; the Overseas Duty History portion of the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) should be changed; or, that a signed copy of the citation of the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM) should be inserted into the OSR. Although the overseas duty history was not reflected on the...
Inasmuch as the above corrections were accomplished subsequent to his consideration for promotion by the CY97B and CY97E Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards, we recommend that the applicant’s corrected record be reviewed when he is considered for promotion by an SSB. It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board for the CY 97B (2 June 1997) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, and for any subsequent board for...