RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03124
INDEX CODE: 131.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special
Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98B (1 Jun 98) Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Board (P0598B), with a corrected Officer Selection Brief
(OSB).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The duty history section of his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) was
erroneous when he was considered for promotion by the P0598B selection
board. He also believes he may have been nonselected because of a
perception among the board members that he spent too much time at
Kirtland AFB, NM.
No documentation was provided in support of his request (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) reveals the
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as 2
Jun 82. He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major,
with an effective date and date of rank of 1 Jul 94. The following is
a resume of his OPR ratings subsequent to his promotion to that grade.
Period Ending Evaluation
15 Sep 94 Meets Standards (MS)
# 15 Sep 95 MS
## 2 Aug 96 MS
2 Jan 97 MS
###1 Jul 97 MS
1 Jul 98 MS
# Top report at the time he was considered below-the-promotion zone
(BPZ) and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY96C
Central Lieutenant Colonel Board (P0596C), which convened on 8 Jul 96.
## Top report at the time he was considered below-the-promotion zone
(BPZ) and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY97C
Central Lieutenant Colonel Board (P0597C), which convened on 21 Jul
97.
### Top report at the time he was considered in-the-promotion zone
(IPZ) and nonselected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY98B
Central Lieutenant Colonel Board (P0598B), which convened on 1 Jun 98.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Directorate of Assignments, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, stated that based on
the applicant’s selection folder, the duty titles and effective dates
in question were in error on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) at the
time of the board. DPAPS1 has administratively corrected the duty
titles as follows: added the duty title of AFMC/PL Special Assistant
for Space Technology at HQ AFSPC, effective 18 Dec 93; and, changed
the duty Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) from 2635 to 2631, effective
date 28 May 83 (Exhibit C).
The Special Programs Assignments Division, HQ AFPC/DPAX, stated that
the applicant’s current assignment reflecting “data masked” was a PCS
reassignment from Kirtland AFB, with duty effective 27 Aug 96. DPAX
indicated that the board members should have been able to determine a
PCS move took place by looking at the Officer Performance Report
(OPR), which reflects a change in PAS Code (Exhibit D).
The Directorate of Personnel Program Management, HQ AFPC/DPPPA,
reviewed this application and recommended denial. DPPPA concurred
with the duty history corrections. DPPPA indicated that the selection
board had the applicant’s entire officer selection record that clearly
outlines his accomplishments since the date he came on active duty.
That means, they were aware he moved permanent change of station from
Kirtland AFB to a data masked location. DPPPA is not convinced the
time he spent at “one particular location” caused the applicant’s
nonselection. Therefore, DPPPA is opposed to the applicant receiving
SSB consideration on this issue. DPPPA stated that the contested duty
title entry has been missing from the personnel data system (PDS)since
the applicant was considered below-the-promotion zone (BPZ) to the
grade of lieutenant colonel by both the CY96C (8 Jul 96) and CY 97C
(21 Jul 97) central lieutenant colonel selection boards. Hence, the
applicant had at least five opportunities to add the missing duty
title entry to his records prior to his in-the-promotion zone (IPZ)
consideration by the P0598B board. The applicant does not state what
actions he took, if any, prior to the CY96C, CY97C and CY98B central
boards to ensure his record was accurate for their review and
consideration. DPPPA stated that it was the applicant’s
responsibility to notify the board of the circumstances surrounding
his extended tenure at one location, and the omission of the duty
title effective 18 Dec 93 from his OSB if he believed them important
to his promotion consideration. DPPPA did not find any record the
applicant wrote such a letter to the board president. DPPPA strongly
recommended denying the applicant’s request for SSB consideration on
these issues (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the advisory opinions and indicated that unless
the board members were to look at the PAS code from the OPR and notice
that the PAS code had changed on the first data masked OPR, they would
have no way of knowing that, in fact, a PCS had taken place. HQ AFPC
did not respond to his contention that spending 8½ years at Kirtland
AFB was the reason for his nonselection. His second tour at Kirtland
was directly due to an AFPC policy in effect at that time. This
greatly limited his ability to enhance those “whole person factors”
described in the advisory opinion. Since he received only “Promote”
recommendations at his two BPZ opportunities, he knew he had
absolutely no chance of being promoted. Therefore, he doubts he
perused his preselection briefs on those occasions. He never received
a preselection brief, nor any “detailed instructions” for his primary
board. It was only after he received the board results that a number
of senior officers agreed that his “extended tenure” probably caused
the nonselection. Advice that is frequently given from senior
officers is to not write a letter to the board president, unless you
are absolutely sure how the letter will be interpreted by the board.
A complete copy of his response is appended at Exhibit G.
_________________________________________________________________
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 injustice. We noted that the appropriate
Air Force office has made the requested duty history corrections.
Accordingly, no action is required by the Board on this issue. With
regard to applicant’s request for promotion consideration by a Special
Selection Board (SSB), we are unpersuaded by the documentation
provided that applicant has been the victim of an injustice. In this
respect, we noted that even though the duty title in question was
missing from his Officer Selection Brief (OSB), it was correctly
indicated on his Officer performance Report (OPR), closing
15 September 1994. Therefore, the selection board had access to the
correct information concerning the duties the applicant was performing
in 1993-1994. We noted applicant’s assertion that he did not
receive a preselection brief for the CY98B Lieutenant Colonel
Selection Board. We believe that since the applicant received
preselection briefs for his below-the-promotion zone (BPZ)
considerations, he was aware of the importance of preselection briefs
and that, if he had not received a preselection brief prior to the
selection board in question, he should have requested one from HQ
AFPC. Applicant has provided no evidence showing his diligence in
acquiring a preselection brief or that he was unsuccessful in his
attempt to correct his duty history prior to the convening of the
CY98B Lieutenant Colonel Board. Further, we are in agreement with the
appropriate Air Force office, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, that central boards
evaluate the entire officer record, which include the OPRs, and that
they were aware of the change in applicant’s duty assignments. We are
therefore unpersuaded by the evidence presented that his “extended
tenure” at Kirtland AFB was the cause of his nonselection. In view of
the above, and in the absence of evidence indicating his record was so
erroneous or misleading that the duly constituted selection board was
unable to make a reasonable decision concerning his standing in
relation to his peers, 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 1 July 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 4 Nov 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 11 Dec 98.
Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAX, dated 15 Dec 98.
Exhibit E. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 5 Jan 99.
Exhibit F. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Jan 99.
Exhibit G. Letter from applicant, dated 26 Jan 99.
TERRY A. YONKERS
Panel Chair
Had he properly reviewed his OPBs prior to either of his BPZ considerations, his record would have been accurate for his P0598B in-the-promotion zone consideration. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Applicant indicated that he believes he is deserving of promotion and he is simply requesting that he be considered for promotion with accurate...
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...
As they have stated, the same errors existed on his P0597C OSB, and the applicant has not explained why he took no action when he received his OPB for that board to get the errors corrected. They noted that with the exception of the 1 Apr 94 error (CMHQ vs. W/B), the same errors the applicant is now pointing out were also in existence at the time of the P0494A board as well. Even though they were in error on the OSB, they were correct on the OPRs.
DPASA stated that when the applicant’s record met the selection board he was not a corps member, thus, no error occurred (Exhibit D). Therefore, the board had the correct information in evidence when his record was considered by the P0598B board. We noted that the appropriate Air Force office has made the requested duty title corrections to applicant’s assignment history.
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Assignments, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, stated that based on the applicant’s selection folder, the duty titles and effective dates in question were in error on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) at the time of the CY98B lieutenant colonel selection board. DPPPA noted the duty history corrections made to the applicant’s records by HQ AFPC/DPAPS1. A complete copy of this evaluation is appended at...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02887 INDEX CODE: 131.00 APPLICANT COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His P0598B Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be updated to reflect his Joint Duty History and Joint Reporting Category and that he be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY98B...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-02973 INDEX CODE 100.05 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection board with his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reflecting the duty history and Duty Air Force Specialty...
At the time applicant was considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY98B board, his OSB reflected his duty title as Commander, DDD Letterkenny, effective 26 Jun 97. The next duty entry of 960613 was changed to reflect information on the next OPR of record. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Supply Officer Assignments, AFPC/DPASL, reviewed this application and indicated that regarding applicant’s request to change his...
_________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Reports & Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the reviewer for the OPR closing 31 Dec 94 signed as Commander of the USAF Air Warfare Center so “Center” is the correct duty command level for this duty entry. This OPR clearly shows that the duty title was incorrect on the OPB for the 950701 entry; therefore, DPAPS1 changed the duty title for this entry in...
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...