Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0103162
Original file (0103162.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 01-03162

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    Her duty title be  changed  from  Social  Worker  to  Family  Advocacy
Element Chief, effective 23 June 1999.

2.    Her records be corrected to reflect  completion  of  Squadron  Officer
School (SOS), effective 13 June 2001.

3.    Her corrected record be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
major by the Calendar Year 2001A (P0401A) Central Major Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her records were inaccurate at the time she was considered for promotion  by
the P0401A board.

Her 23 June 1999 duty title entry was identified  as  being  incorrect  four
weeks prior to the P0401A board; however, because of problems  with  MILMOD,
the orderly room was unable to make the correction prior  to  the  convening
of the board.

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits supportive  statements  from
her supervisor and commander; a statement from  the  test  administrator;  a
copy of her SURF dated 29 May 2001; a copy of her  Officer  Selection  Brief
(OSB) dated 1 March 2002 with a copy of her  Promotion  Recommendation  Form
for the P0401A board and  a  copy  of  her  OSB  dated  13  June  2001  with
attachments.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the  Military  Personnel  Data  System  (MilPDS)
indicates the applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service as 4  March
1996.  She is currently serving on active duty in  the  grade  of  captain,
with a date of rank of 6 January 1995 and an  effective  date  of  4  March
1996.  As of 29 April 2002, the MilPDS reflects her duty title  during  the
period 23 June 1999 through 17 April 2001 as Social Worker  while  assigned
to Whiteman AFB, MO.

The applicant’s Officer Selection Record  (OSR)  contains  AF  Forms  707B,
Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) beginning with the rating period 4 March
1996 and ending on 17 April 2001 with overall ratings of “Meets Standards.”
 During these rating periods,  the  applicant  received  an  AF  Form  709,
Promotion Recommendation Form, for the P0401A Selection Board and  received
an overall recommendation of “Promote.”

Additionally, the applicant’s OSB indicates she was awarded  an  Air  Force
Commendation Medal for the period 25 March 1996 – 21 June 1999.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPO  recommends  the  application  be  denied.   DPPPO  states   that
although the applicant’s Military Personnel Flight updated  her  duty  title
to “family advocacy element chief”  on  16  January  2002,  DPPO  could  not
locate any documentation to substantiate the  update.   Therefore,  the  MPF
reverted her duty title back to “social worker” as  reflected  on  her  OPRs
closing 17 April 2000 and closing 17 April 2001.  Furthermore, DPPPO  states
that the applicant has only provided support  from  her  rater  on  the  OPR
closing 17 April 2001 and has not submitted  letters  of  support  from  the
remainder of her rating chain for the OPR closing 17 April 2000.

DPPPO confirms that the applicant’s SOS test was scored on 13 June 2001  and
updated in the MilPDS on 2 July  2001.   DPPPO  states  that  the  applicant
wrote a letter to the board explaining the  date  she  would  take  her  SOS
test; however did not inform  the  board  of  her  course  completion  date.
DPPPO feels that the applicant did not show due diligence  in  ensuring  her
SOS was in her OSB; therefore, granting SSB consideration is not  warranted.


DPPPO states that on 24 January 2002, the Evaluation  Reports  Appeal  Board
(ERAB) considered the applicant’s request to correct  her  duty  title  from
“social worker” to “family advocacy.”  The ERAB denied her  request  because
it appeared no corrective action was taken before the results of the  P0401A
board were  released  and  the  applicant  was  notified  of  her  promotion
nonselection.  DPPPO states the ERAB was unclear  as  to  why  she  did  not
request the duty title of “social worker” also be changed in the PRF.

The DPPPO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to  the  applicant
on 5 April 2002 for review and response within  30  days.   However,  as  of
this date, no response has been received by this office.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.

        a.  We have  reviewed  the  available  evidence  pertaining  to  the
applicant’s assertions related to her duty title  on  the  OSB  for  the  CY
2001A selection, including statements from her commander and  the  rater  of
her April 2001 OPR, and we are unpersuaded that SSB consideration  based  on
a change to her duty history is warranted.  Her contentions in  this  regard
are duly noted; however, in our opinion, the Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility has adequately addressed these  contentions  and  we  are  in
agreement with their recommendation.  Accordingly, in  the  absence  of  the
required documentation showing an official change to her duty title  as  she
has alleged, SSB consideration based on this issue is not appropriate.

        b.  As  to  the  applicant’s  assertions   that   the   absence   of
information on her OSB indicating she had completed SOS  caused  her  to  be
the victim of a promotion injustice, we note that she wrote a letter to  the
board president explaining the date she intended to take her  SOS  test  but
did not inform the selection board  that  this  was  an  accomplished  fact.
Furthermore, there is  no  indication  in  the  available  record  that  the
applicant took expeditious action to notify  responsible  officials  at  the
Air University that she had completed SOS.  In view of  the  above  and  the
dates the applicant completed SOS and the board convened and  based  on  the
exigencies of administrative processing of  such  matters,  the  absence  of
this information from her OSB was, in our  opinion,  neither  erroneous  nor
unjust.

        c.  Accordingly, in the absence of evidence which would lead  us  to
believe  her  record  was  so  inaccurate  and  misleading  that  the   duly
constituted board,  charged  with  the  discretionary  authority  to  select
officers for promotion, was unable to make a reasonable judgment  concerning
her promotability in relation to her peers, the applicant’s request  is  not
favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of 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 15 May 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:


      Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member
      Mr. John E. B. Smith, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Oct 01 w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPO, dated 21 Mar 02.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 5 Apr 02.





                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair

Similar Decisions

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01731

    Original file (BC-2003-01731.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 03-01731 INDEX CODE: 111.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The referral Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 27 March 2001, Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) P0401A and any associated memoranda regarding the referral period be removed from his records and his corrected record be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01106

    Original file (BC-2003-01106.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Included in support is a statement from the 19 Sep 98 OPR rater who recommended the applicant’s duty title be changed to “SQ Pilot Scheduler/C-130H Pilot.” Despite the applicant’s request, the senior rater did not support the changes to the PRF or SSB consideration, asserting that while he regretted the administrative errors, they were minor and did not change the information in Section IV or in the OPRs. A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01266

    Original file (BC-2002-01266.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01266 02-02454 INDEX CODE: 100.05, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) effective 20 June 1999 be changed from “16F4A” to “P16F4AW” on his officer selection brief (OSB); his duty title effective 1 April 1995 be changed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-02454

    Original file (BC-2002-02454.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: 02-01266 02-02454 INDEX CODE: 100.05, 131.01 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX COUNSEL: NONE XXXXXXXXXXXX HEARING DESIRED: YES _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) effective 20 June 1999 be changed from “16F4A” to “P16F4AW” on his officer selection brief (OSB); his duty title effective 1 April 1995 be changed...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2003-02043

    Original file (BC-2003-02043.DOC) Auto-classification: Denied

    The IG investigation reported that five reasons had been cited for her dismissal. AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: Counsel reviewed the Air Force evaluations and stated that the essence of the DPPPE advisory opinion is that since the Inspector General did not find the applicant’s complaint of reprisal to have been substantiated, her record...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01373

    Original file (BC-2003-01373.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-01373 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His duty history on the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) and duty title on the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) prepared for the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (P0501B) be corrected, and his corrected record be...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2005 | BC-2005-01932

    Original file (BC-2005-01932.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    She be given SSB consideration by the CY04J Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board with inclusion of a letter she wrote to the original board; her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected to reflect her five-month deployment in 2003 to the CENTCOM AOR and removal of AF Form 77 closing 26 May 2000, from her Officer Selection Record (OSR) and the corresponding OPRs for the same rating period from all of the benchmark records for the purpose of SSB consideration. She wrote a letter to...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-01568

    Original file (BC-2003-01568.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    Specifically, his flight commander, Col L___, put his former duty title (Clinical Social Worker) on his last OPR at Kessler, rather than the job title he held at the time (Chief, Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention and Treatment Program), as reflected on his Air Force Commendation (AFCM). It is plain to see by his letter of inquiry to his former group commander, that he went out of his way to be professional, not to claim discrimination on the part of his flight commander so long after the fact. ...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-00601

    Original file (BC-2003-00601.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2003-00601 INDEX CODE: 131.00, 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: It appears the applicant is requesting revised Promotion Recommendation Forms (PRFs) for the CY01A (P0401A) and CY02B (P0402B) Central Major Selection Boards. Her CY02B PRF was written by the same squadron commander who...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2002 | 0102406

    Original file (0102406.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    Based on the evidence provided DPPPO recommends denying the applicant's request to be reconsidered for promotion to colonel (Exhibit D). However, it appears that the organization from which she has received this current certification is not recognized by the Air Force as an accredited board or agency and her records should not reflect board certification. As a result, the selection board was apparently advised that she was not board certified; however, it cannot be determined...