RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01428
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 1999 (CY99B) Lieutenant
Colonel Board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
His assignment history on his officer selection brief (OSB) was incorrect.
The top line of his OSB contained the incorrect organization. It reflects
“Operations Support Sq” when it should have reflected “Operations Support
Wing.” Also, his duty title “Current Ops Flt Commander” was missing on his
OSB. He states that on 24 November 1999, he requested a copy of his OSB
and did not receive it until 9 December 1999.
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal statement, a
copy of his OSB, dated 1 December 1999, a copy of his Officer Surf, 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
major.
Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of
lieutenant colonel by the CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on
30 November 1999.
Applicant is scheduled for above-the-promotion zone (APZ) consideration by
the CY00A lieutenant colonel board scheduled to convene on 28 November
2000.
Applicant’s duty title “Current Ops Flt Commander” was not reflected on his
OSB before the CY99B Board. Per AFPC/DPPPA, the duty title has been added
to the personnel data system (PDS).
OPR profile since 1993 follows:
PERIOD ENDING EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL
19 Oct 93 Meets Standards (MS)
19 Oct 94 Meets Standards
14 Jun 95 Meets Standards
14 Jun 96 Meets Standards
14 Jun 97 Meets Standards
14 Jun 98 Meets Standards
14 Jun 99 Meets Standards
_________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate of Personnel Program
Management, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and states that while it
may be argued that the contested duty history data was a factor in the
applicant’s nonselection, there is no clear evidence that it negatively
impacted his promotion opportunity. Central boards evaluate the entire
officer selection record (OSR) (including the PRF, OPRs, 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. They contend
the board had the correct information for their consideration, and they
trust they took this data into consideration in the selection process.
They are not convinced the incorrect duty history information contributed
to the applicant’s nonselection. Therefore, they recommend denial of
applicant’s request.
A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachment, is attached
at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that his OSB
contained erroneous information due to no fault of his own. His OSB
incorrectly reflected his level of responsibility and career progression.
The OSB is the first impression of his officer record and thus has a direct
impact on his promotion.
Applicant’s complete response is attached at 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 took notice of the
applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however,
we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force and adopt
their rationale as the basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not
been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of
evidence to the contrary, 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 11 October 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:
Ms. Charlene Bradley, Panel Chair
Mr. Mike Novel, Member
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 12 May 2000, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 2 August 2000, w/atch.
Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 August 2000.
Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 8 September 2000
CHARLENE BRADLEY
Panel Chair
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.
AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Chief, Assignment Procedures Section, AFPC/DPAPP1, reviewed the application and states that applicant’s request to have the command level block updated to reflect “CMHQ,” versus “NAF,” was approved and updated by the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) through an In-System Request (ISR) on 25 April 2000. There is no record provided to indicate that the request was approved in time to change the applicant’s record prior to the date the CY99B board convened. In fact,...
The citation accompanying the MSM 1OLC was missing from the applicant’s Officer’s Selection Record (OSR) when he was considered for promotion by the CY99B board, which convened on 30 November 1999, and still is not filed in his record. In this respect, after thoroughly reviewing the complete case file, a majority of the Board noted that the Air Force has indicated that the applicant's Officer Selection Record (OSR) did not contain the citation accompanying the award of the MSM 1st OLC for...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 00-01169 INDEX NUMBER:131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears the applicant is requesting that the command level for his current duty assignment on his officer selection brief (OSB) be corrected from W/B (wing/base) to CMHQ (major command headquarters) and that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection...
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00728 INDEX NUMBER: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ___________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Assignment History on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the CY98 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board be corrected; the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 1 Dec 97 be considered in the Management Level Review (MLR)...
A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C. The Acting Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, states that the applicant contends the officer selection brief reviewed by the board did not reflect the correct command level code. Applicant’s Officer Selection Brief (OSB) did not reflect the correct command level for the 1 January 1999 entry on the applicant’s duty history at the time he was considered by the CY99B selection board. VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ Panel Chair AFBCMR...
The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) reviewed by the CY98B board reflected a promotion recommendation of “Promote.” According to the advisory opinions (Exhibits C, D, and E with Addendum), amendments were made to both the OSB and the PRF before the CY98B board convened. According to HQ AFPC/DPPPE’s advisory (Exhibit D), the CY98 AETC Management Level Review (CY98B) president approved the corrected PRF and determined the “Promote” recommendation was still appropriate. It appears that the...
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. His most recent duty title entry was missing from his OSB, they note the duty title "Wing Exercise/Deployment Officert1 is present...
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...
_________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: The DAFSC with an effective date of 24 Aug 95, and the aeronautical/flying data on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) were in error. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The Directorate of Assignments, AFPC/DPAIS1, reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant’s DAFSC of “W12B1Y” was consistent with the OPR on file. ...