RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00725
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for consideration by the
CY98B (P0598B) Below-the-Promotion Zone (BPZ) Lieutenant Colonel
Board, which convened on 1 Jun 98, be corrected; and, he be given
Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration with his corrected record.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The OSB contained numerous errors in the Assignment History section.
These errors conflicted with his OPRs and master records. He never
received an Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) affording him the
opportunity to correct the errors in his record before the convening
of the board. As a result, his opportunity for promotion selection
was prejudiced.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies of his OSB,
training report, and OPRs.
Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
lieutenant colonel, having been promoted to that grade on 1 Aug 99.
His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 13 Sep 82.
Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1988 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION
15 Jul 88 1-1-1
2 May 89 Meets Standards
1 Feb 90 Meets Standards
1 Feb 91 Meets Standards
1 Feb 92 Meets Standards
31 May 92 Meets Standards
31 May 93 Meets Standards
31 May 94 Meets Standards
31 May 95 Meets Standards
8 Nov 96 Training Report
8 Nov 97 Meets Standards
# 31 Mar 98 Meets Standards
# Top Report - CY98B (1 Jun 98) BPZ Lt Col Board.
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Assignment Information Branch, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this
application and addressed the requested action, as it appeared on the
OSB, as follows:
a. 15 Aug 95 - Applicant contends his duty location as reads
"McGuire" should read "Ft Dix". Based on the AF Form 475 contained in
the his selection folder, they concur with the applicant and have
verified update in the PDS.
b. Apr 94 - Applicant contends his duty command level as reads
"W/B" should read "CMHQ." Based on the OPR closing 31 May 94, they
concur with the applicant and have verified update in PDS.
c. 8 Apr 91 - Applicant contends his duty title as reads "WG
EXEC ADV FLT TNG 141 EXAM" should read "WG EXEC, ADV FLT TNG C141
EXAM." While they do not concur that the duty title itself is
incorrect, they do concur that the presence of the comma and C would
have made the entry more readable. PDS has been updated.
d. 20 Sep 89 - Applicant contends his duty title as reads
"C141 INSTR ACFT CMDR" should read "ADV FLT TNG C 141 INSTR ACFT
CMDR." Based on the OPR closing 1 Feb 90, they concur that half of
the applicant’s duty title was omitted. They have verified update to
the PDS with one exception: "CMDR" was input as "CDR" due to the 31
character limitation of duty titles in PDS.
e. 27 Jul 89 - Applicant contends his duty title as reads
"ADV FLT TNG C141 ACFT CMDR" should read "ADV FLT TNG C141 INSTR ACFT
CMDR." Based on the OPR closing 1 Feb 90, they concur with the
applicant on the omission of "INSTR" and have updated the PDS with the
following exception: "CMDR" was input as "CDR" due to the 31 character
limitation of duty titles in PDS.
f. 17 Jun 88 - Applicant contends his duty title as reads
"INSTR AC C141" should read "INSTR ACFT CMDR C141." Based on the OPR
closing 15 Jul 88, they do not concur that the duty title itself is
incorrect; only that a poor choice of acronyms were used. They have
updated PDS to reflect the requested duty title.
A complete copy of the DPAPS1 evaluation is at Exhibit C.
The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and
recommended denial.
DPPPA noted the advisory from HQ AFPC/DPAPS1 addressing each of the
errors alleged by the applicant. On each one, AFPC/DPAPS1 has agreed
to some type of correction to the PDS based on the applicant's record.
DPPPA accepted the corrections made to the PDS and added the
following for the Board’s consideration.
DPPPA noted the applicant’s contention that he did not receive an OPB
prior to the P0598B board. In researching the applicant's appeal,
DPPPA indicated that they compared his P0598B OSB to the OSB
considered by the CY97C (21 Jul 97) (P0597C) lieutenant colonel board
(his first BPZ consideration) OSB and discovered that each of the
errors the applicant points out on his P0598B OSB were also in
existence on the P0597C OSB. The applicant does not state whether or
not he received his P0597C OPB, but we can only presume he did since
he is not contesting the OSB reviewed by that board.
According to DPPPA, the OPB is sent to each eligible officer several
months prior to a selection board. The OPB contains data that will
appear on the OSB at the central board. Written instructions attached
to the OPB and given to the officer before the central selection board
specifically instruct him/her to carefully examine the brief for
completeness and accuracy. If any errors are found, he/she must take
corrective action prior to the selection board, not after it. 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." 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. Even further, they have
attached the OSB used for the CY94A (22 Aug 94) major selection board
(P0494A). The P0494A board selected the applicant for the grade of
major. 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. They contend
that if these errors were going to have a negative impact on his
promotion opportunity, it would have happened at that time. In
DPPPA’s view, the applicant has had more than ample opportunities to
ensure his assignment history was correct--even if he did not receive
the OPB prior to the P0598B board.
As pointed out by HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, DPPPA indicated that each of the
duty history errors were verified against the applicant's officer
performance reports (OPRs). Even though they were in error on the
OSB, they were correct on the OPRs. As such, they opined that each
error, in and of itself, was a harmless administrative error. In
DPPPA’s view, the selection board had the correct information in the
form of the OPRs and took this into consideration in the selection
process.
DPPPA stated that, while it may be argued that the contested OSB
errors were a factor in the applicant’s nonselection, there was no
clear evidence that they negatively impacted his promotion opportunity-
-particularly since he was promoted to major with these same errors on
his OSB. Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record
(OSR) (including the promotion recommendation form, officer
performance reports, officer effectiveness reports, 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 professional military education.
According to DPPPA, the applicant has not demonstrated he exercised
“reasonable diligence” in getting these errors corrected.
A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation, with attachment, is at
Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 14
Jun 99 for review and response. As of this date, no response has been
received by this office (Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________
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 note that the
applicant’s duty history has been corrected administratively.
However, we agree with the rationale expressed by AFPC/DPPPA
concerning SSB consideration with the corrected duty history.
Therefore, in the absence of sufficient evidence to support a
determination that the applicant’s record before the original
selection board was so inaccurate or misleading that the board was
unable to make a reasonable decision concerning his promotability in
relationship to his peers, we adopt their rationale and conclude that
no basis exists 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 28 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
Ms. Dorothy P. Loeb, Member
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 16 Mar 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 19 Apr 99.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 2 Jun 99.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Jun 99.
CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
Panel Chair
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.
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...
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)...
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 the application and states that the CY96A major board evaluated applicant’s entire officer selection record (OSR) that outlines his accomplishments since the date he came on active duty. A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit...
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. 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. ...
_________________________________________________________________ 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...
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”...
A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit C. The Reports and Queries Section, AFPC/DPAPS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the OPRs and the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) accurately reflected the duty titles contained on source document OPRs for duty history entries of 960601 and 980206. A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: In his...
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...
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...