RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02375
INDEX CODE: 111,01, 131.01
COUNSEL: None
HEARING DESIRED: No
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS:
Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the Calendar Year 1997E
(CY97E) (8 Dec 97) Judge Advocate General (JAG) Lieutenant Colonel
Board with inclusion of the corrected Officer Performance Report (OPR)
closing 21 Aug 97.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
To deny him SSB consideration is to assert that the Professional
Military Education (PME) recommendation from a senior officer in an
OPR is meaningless filler and is not substantive. There is no way to
actually know which view of his mistaken PME recommendation the
promotion board members took; this error may have contributed to his
nonselection for promotion by the CY97E board.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal brief, a
copy of the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) appeal package, a
statement from the rater of the contested report, a copy of an appeal
from another individual under AFI 36-2401, a copy of AFI 36-2402, a
copy of a memorandum of instruction, and a copy of an excerpt from
Section 662, Title 10, United States Code (USC).
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is
6 Jan 86. He is currently serving on extended active duty in the
grade of major, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Dec 93.
Applicant Officer Effectiveness Report (OER)/OPR profile since 1990
follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
22 Nov 90 Meets Standards
22 Nov 91 Meets Standards
31 Jul 92 Meets Standards
17 Jun 93 Meets Standards
1 Jun 94 Meets Standards
1 Jun 95 Meets Standards
1 Jun 96 Meets Standards
8 Dec 96 Meets Standards
* 21 Aug 97 Meets Standards
21 Aug 98 Meets Standards
* Contested report.
The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY97E central selection board.
Applicant filed an appeal under AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and
Enlisted Evaluation Reports, requesting the level of PME be changed
from “ISS” (Intermediate Service School) to “SSS” (Senior Service
School) and if approved, he be given SSB consideration by the CY97E
board. The ERAB agreed to change the level of PME but considered the
error was not substantive in nature and disapproved applicant’s
request to receive SSB consideration.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application
and indicated that there is no clear evidence that the wrong level of
PME on applicant’s OPR negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.
Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record (OSR)
(including the promotion recommendation form (PRF), OPRs, Officer
Effectiveness Reports (OERs), training reports, letters of evaluation,
decorations, and officer selection brief), assessing whole person
factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and
breadth of experience, leadership, and academic and PME. The
selection board had applicant’s entire OSR that clearly outlined his
accomplishments since the date he came on active duty. DPPPA is not
convinced the board members zeroed in on the level of PME reflected on
the OPR in question and used it as the sole cause of applicant’s
nonselection.
In addition, the applicant included evidence with his appeal from
another member of the Air Force who was granted SSB consideration
based on an omission of a PME recommendation. The PME recommendation,
in that case, enhanced the report and SSB consideration was warranted.
The applicant is trying to convince the Board that the error on his
report also deserves SSB consideration. DPPPA does not agree. The
applicant is entitled to his opinion; however, as noted above, the Air
Force has determined corrections of this type are not substantial and
are, in fact, administrative in nature and do not warrant SSB
consideration. The PME recommendation in this instance was not an
omission. DPPPA, therefore, does not believe SSB consideration is
warranted. Based on the evidence provided, DPPPA recommends denial.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit B.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and provided a 3-page
response, commenting on the assertions made in the advisory opinion
(see Exhibit D).
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:
1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing
law or regulations.
2. The application was timely filed.
3. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice. Although we cannot
conclusively determine if the level of PME on the OPR closing 21 Aug
97 caused his nonselection by the CY97E selection board, we believe it
served to preclude his consideration on a fair and equitable basis.
Therefore, we recommend his corrected OPR, with inclusion of the
statement “Must select for Senior Service School” be considered by an
SSB for the CY97E lieutenant colonel board.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force
relating to APPLICANT, to include the Field Grade OPR, AF Form 707A,
rendered for the period 9 Dec 96 through 21 Aug 97, reflecting the
statement in Section VII (Additional Rater Overall Assessment) “Must
select for Senior Service School” rather than “Must select for
Intermediate Service School” be considered for promotion to the grade
of lieutenant colonel by an SSB for the CY97E Central Lieutenant
Colonel Board.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in
Executive Session on 15 June 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:
Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
Dr. Gerald B. Kauvar, Member
Mr. Michael Barbino, Member
Mrs. Joyce Earley, Examiner (without vote)
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The
following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 Aug 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 21 Sep 98.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 12 Oct 98.
Exhibit D. Letter fr applicant, dated 20 Oct 98.
VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
Panel Chair
INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01
AFBCMR 98-02375
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF
Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to include the Field Grade Officer Performance Report,
AF Form 707A, rendered for the period 9 December 1996 through
21 August 1997, reflecting the statement in Section VII (Additional
Rater Overall Assessment) “Must select for Senior Service School”
rather than “Must select for Intermediate Service School” be
considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by a
Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1997E Central Lieutenant
Colonel Board.
JOE G.
LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force
Review Boards Agency
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-02209 INDEX CODES: 111.02, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 1997E (CY97E) Lieutenant Colonel Board (PO597E), which convened on 8 Dec 97, be voided and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. There was...
In this respect, the Board majority notes that the Evaluation Report Appeal Board ( E M ) corrected the contested OPR by changing the additional rater's PME recommendation from ISS to SSS. Therefore, a majority of the Board recommends his corrected record be considered by Special Selection Board for the CY97C board. In the applicant’s case, the information regarding the award was available based upon the announcement date of 24 Feb 97; however, there is no requirement in AFI 36-2402 that...
As to the 23 June 1997 duty history entry, the Air Force office of primary responsibility, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, stated that the applicant's letter to the P0597C board president, which explained his then current duty title, was in his Officer Selection Record (0%) when it was considered by the P0597C selection board. The applicant requests two corrections to his duty history. The applicant requests his duty history entry, effective 2 Oct 92, be updated to reflect “Chief, Commodities Section”...
DPPPA notes the 30 Sep 95 OPR was the top document on file for the CY96C board and, as the senior rater states, includes a recommendation for professional military education (PME). As a matter of interest, DPPPA notes the senior rater’s letter, dated 17 Dec 96 (see AFI 36-2401 appeal), states he “did not feel it necessary to reiterate to the promotion board (his) endorsement to SSS on his (the applicant’s) PRF.” The senior rater believed the statement, “If I had one more DP...” was his best...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1997-03386
DPPPA notes the 30 Sep 95 OPR was the top document on file for the CY96C board and, as the senior rater states, includes a recommendation for professional military education (PME). As a matter of interest, DPPPA notes the senior rater’s letter, dated 17 Dec 96 (see AFI 36-2401 appeal), states he “did not feel it necessary to reiterate to the promotion board (his) endorsement to SSS on his (the applicant’s) PRF.” The senior rater believed the statement, “If I had one more DP...” was his best...
Applicant was not selected by either board. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on 19 April 1999 for review and response. 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...
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and states that the entire Air Force promotion recommendation process is totally a creature of Air Force regulation; it is not governed at all by statute or DoD Directive. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1997-01786
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D. The Senior Attorney-Advisor, AFPC/JA, reviewed this application and states that the entire Air Force promotion recommendation process is totally a creature of Air Force regulation; it is not governed at all by statute or DoD Directive. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E. APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that...
AF | BCMR | CY1998 | BC-1998-00165
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the Calendar Year 1996C (CY96C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. In support of his request, applicant submits a statement from the Senior Rater, who has rewritten the contested PRF and, a statement from the Management Level Review Board President supporting the substitution of the contested PRF with a reaccomplished PRF. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the Calendar Year 1996C (CY96C) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be declared void and replaced with a reaccomplished PRF. In support of his request, applicant submits a statement from the Senior Rater, who has rewritten the contested PRF and, a statement from the Management Level Review Board President supporting the substitution of the contested PRF with a reaccomplished PRF. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at...