RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01419
INDEX CODE: 131.01
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
1. Her Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 8 October
1991 through 7 October 1992 be corrected to reflect the duty title of
“Assistant Chief of Civil Law/Military Justice” vice “Assistant Staff Judge
Advocate.”
2. Her Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 8 October 1992
through 30 July 1993 be corrected to reflect the duty title of “Assistant
Chief of Military Justice,” vice “Assistant Staff Judge Advocate.”
3. Her Officer Performance Report rendered for the period 31 July 1993
through 30 July 1994 be corrected to reflect the duty title of “Chief,
Civil Law” vice “Assistant Staff Judge Advocate.”
4. The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) dated 23 February 1999, be amended as
follows:
a. The 31 December 1991 duty title entry be amended to read “Assistant
Chief Civil Law/Military Justice” vice “Assistant Staff Judge Advocate.”
b. The 2 January 1994 and 14 March 1994 entries in the Assignment
History section be deleted.
c. Include the duty title of “Chief, Acquisition Law,” effective 1
December 1994.
5. She be considered for promotion to the grade of major in-the-promotion
zone (IPZ) by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1999A
(CY99A) Major Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The information contained in her record was incorrect and misleading. When
the errors in her duty titles are combined with the misleading picture
portrayed by the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) duty history and what was
her OPRs lack of Professional Military Education (PME) recommendation, the
overall presentation is of a picture far less favorable than her raters and
additional raters have clearly indicated they wished to portray. Failure
to correct these errors presents an inaccurate picture of her career and
makes it difficult for the board to make a fully informed recommendation as
to her potential to successfully serve in the next higher grade and in
positions of greater responsibility.
In support of her appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, OSB,
dated 23 February 1999, the contested OPRs, Letter from the Deputy Staff
Judge Advocate, dated 20 April 2000, Letter from the Chief, Military
Justice Division, dated 30 March 2000, Letter from the Vice Commander, Air
combat Command, dated 21 March 2000, an E-mail copy of the AFI 36-2401
Decision, and other documentation.
Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of
captain.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion below-the-promotion
zone (BPZ) to the grade of major by the CY96C (2 December 1996) and the
CY97E (8 December 1997) Major Selection Boards.
There was no CY98 board for judge advocates.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion in-the-promotion
zone (IPZ) to the grade of major by the CY99A Major Selection Board, which
convened on 8 March 1999.
Applicant was considered and selected for promotion above-the-promotion
zone (APZ) to the grade of major by the CY00A Major Selection Board, which
convened on 24 January 2000.
The applicant filed a similar appeal under the provisions of AFI 36-2401
and the appeal was considered and denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeal
Board (ERAB) on 14 March 2000.
The applicant appealed under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, to correct her
duty title on her 21 June 1998 OPR. The ERAB approved the change and
granted promotion reconsideration by the CY99A board. She was considered
by the SSB which, convened on 28 August 2000. The results of the SSB will
not be released until November 2000.
OPR profile since 1992 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
* 7 Oct 92 Meets Standards (MS)
* 30 Jul 93 (MS)
* 30 Jul 94 (MS)
1 Jul 95 (MS)
8 Dec 95 (MS)
21 Jun 96 (MS)
21 Jun 97 (MS)
21 Jun 98 (MS)
21 Jun 99 (MS)
* Contested Report
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Deputy Chief, Professional Development Division, Office of the Judge
Advocate General, HQ USAF/JAX, reviewed this application and states that no
OPRs should be corrected. He states that the OSB duty history should be
corrected to reflect Assistant Staff Judge Advocate in entries through
1994, eliminating redundant entries due to past correction attempts.
However, if the decision is to grant the specific relief sought, the OPR
closing out in October 1992 should reflect “Assistant Chief, Civil
Law/Military Justice;” the OPR closing out in July 1993 should reflect
“Assistant Chief, Military Justice;” and the OPR closing out in July 1994
should reflect “Chief, Civil Law.” The related duty titles in the
personnel database would have to be changed as well.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.
The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program
Management, AFPC/DPPPA, also reviewed this application and states that they
recommend this appeal be time-barred. The applicant has had several
opportunities to ensure her duty titles were correct and review her records
prior to board convening dates. Yet, she waited until her first IPZ
nonselection to challenge the validity of the duty titles on the 1992,
1993, and 1994 OPRs. This appears to be an attempt to correct the record
only to enhance her promotion opportunity. Promotion nonselection,
however, does not flaw an evaluation report. Therefore, if the AFBCMR
considers the appeal on merit, then they recommend denial.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached
at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a statement, with
attachments, which is attached at Exhibit F.
_________________________________________________________________
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 warranting correcting the duty
titles on the OPRs closing 7 October 1992, 20 July 1993, and 30 July 1994.
We took notice of the applicant’s complete submission, to include the
statements from the raters of the contested reports, in judging the merits
of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the
Office of The Judge Advocate General (HQ USAF/JAX) that the applicant has
not been the victim of an error or injustice. HQ USAF/JAX states that they
consider the duty title “Assistant Staff Judge Advocate” to be an
appropriate duty title for judge advocates at the base level, unless he/she
holds a position such as Area Defense Counsel or Staff Judge Advocate. The
statements of the raters of the contested reports are duly noted; however,
it is recognized that individual staff judge advocates may establish a
system in their office to make duty titles more specific but, apparently
they are not required to do so. It appears that many staff judge advocates
organize their office duty titles using “Assistant Staff Judge Advocate” as
the duty title and more descriptive language in the narrative that follows.
That appears to have been the case for the time period encompassing the
applicant contentions. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought on this portion of the application.
4. Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the
existence of probable error or injustice. The documentation provided was
sufficient to raise doubt concerning the accuracy of the contested Officer
Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for the CY99A Major Selection Board. In
this respect, we note the opinion and recommendation of HQ USAF/JAX. The
duty titles on the applicant’s OSB should be reflective of the OPRs
rendered during the contested time period. While we are not inclined to
amend the contested Officer Performance Reports, as requested by the
applicant, we do believe the evidence presented raises sufficient doubt
regarding the accuracy of the OSB, and that such doubt should be resolved
in her favor. Additionally, we believe that any redundant entries on the
OSB prepared for the CY99A Board should be eliminated. In view of the
foregoing and in an effort to remove any possibility of an injustice to the
applicant, we recommend that her record be corrected to the extent
indicated below.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:
The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating
to APPLICANT, to include a corrected officer selection brief, reflecting
the duty title “Assistant Staff Judge Advocate,” effective 31 December 1991
and 7 October 1993, and “Chief, Acquisition Law,” effective 1 December
1994, and deleting the 2 January 1994 and 14 March 1994 assignment history
entries, be considered for promotion to the grade of major in-the-promotion
zone (IPZ) by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1999A Central
Major Selection Board and for any subsequent boards for which the duty
title was not a matter of record.
_________________________________________________________________
The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive
Session on 26 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
Mr. Laurence M. Groner, Member
Mr. John E. Pettit, Member
All members voted to correct the records, as recommended. The following
documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 22 May 20000, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, USAF/JAX, dated 3 July 2000, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 2 August 2000, w/atchs.
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 August 2000.
Exhibit F. Letter, Applicant, dated 12 August 2000, w/atchs.
HENRY ROMO, JR.
Panel Chair
AFBCMR 00-01419
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,XX to include a corrected officer selection brief, reflecting
the duty title “Assistant Staff Judge Advocate,” effective 31 December 1991
and 7 October 1993, and “Chief, Acquisition Law,” effective 1 December
1994, and deleting the 2 January 1994 and 14 March 1994 assignment history
entries, be considered for promotion to the grade of major in-the-promotion
zone (IPZ) by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 1999A Central
Major Selection Board and for any subsequent boards for which the duty
title was not a matter of record.
JOE G. LINEBERGER
Director
Air Force Review Boards Agency
He had less than two years eligibility to complete ACSC prior to consideration for LTC IPZ in Apr 99, whereas his peers had at least four and one-half years. He did complete ACSC in Nov 99 in time for the CY99B board’s consideration. Although the applicant did not raise this issue, we believe his not having sufficient time to build a performance record as a major before being considered IPZ for LTC may have contributed to his nonselection.
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-01385
The AFPC/JA evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO recommends the application be denied, and states, in part, that officers will not be considered by an SSB 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. Applicant’s contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00680
The AFPC/DPPBR3 evaluation is at Exhibit C. AFPC/DPPPO states that the applicant’s 15 June 1993 duty title entry was updated in the Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS) in March 2000, after he submitted a DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, to correct this error. 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...
AF | BCMR | CY1999 | BC-1999-01802
She currently has a DOS of 23 Nov 99. The Chief states that selective continuation of twice nonselected officers was not offered for the Mar 99 Nurse Corps Major promotion board; thus, the applicant has a mandatory DOS. DPPPA notes that the contested TR was part of the applicant’s OSR when she was considered for promotion to major by the CY97D board and the DOS of 23 Nov 99 was reflected on both of her CY97D and CY99A OSBs.
She currently has a DOS of 23 Nov 99. The Chief states that selective continuation of twice nonselected officers was not offered for the Mar 99 Nurse Corps Major promotion board; thus, the applicant has a mandatory DOS. DPPPA notes that the contested TR was part of the applicant’s OSR when she was considered for promotion to major by the CY97D board and the DOS of 23 Nov 99 was reflected on both of her CY97D and CY99A OSBs.
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2001-02883
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 01-02883 INDEX CODE: 111.01, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Professional Military Education (PME) recommendations on his Officer Performance Reports (OPRs), closing 19 Mar 94 and 25 Nov 94, be changed from Intermediate Service School (ISS) to Senior Service School (SSS). The...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-00941
A review of the applicant’s personnel record confirms both the Air Force and the Joint Staff’s systems of record were updated to reflect appropriate joint duty credit at the time the promotion board convened. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant asserts that nowhere in the referenced CJCSI does it say that joint duty history will not be reflected on an...
After receiving a copy of his “as met” records for the CY00A board, he discovered that no citation for the JSCM was present in his OSR. The JSCM citation still has not been filed in his OSR as of the date of his applications. TERRY A. YONKERS Panel Chair AFBCMR 00-02918 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...
ADDENDUM TO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 97-02572 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES RESUME OF CASE: On 12 February 1998, the Board considered applicant’s requests that his nonselections for promotion to the grade of major beginning with the Calendar Year 1993 (CY93) Central Major Board be declared void and his records be corrected to reflect selection for promotion to the grade of major by the CY93 board and...
The following are documented omissions from his personnel records and Officer Selection Brief (OSB) at the time of the CY98B lieutenant colonel board: 1) Overseas Long Tour at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany: Jan 84- Jan 87. A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Chief, Reports & Queries Section, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, states, with respect to the applicant’s duty history, that they have reviewed the applicant’s source document Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and AF Forms...