RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-02349
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: YES
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
Her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected to reflect the correct
duty title and assignment history and she receive Special Selection
Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant
colonel for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) Selection Board.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
From 30 Jun 95 - 23 Jul 98 she was assigned as a Special Projects
Element Monitor (PEM) in SAF/AQS, a highly desirable position for
officers in the acquisition field. In her OSB, this duty title was
missing -- a duty title from her next assignment was listed in its
place. She believes that when her duty title was updated in 1998, the
previous duty title was overwritten. She discovered the error before
the board but the change was not made in time. The OSB is what the
promotion board looks at for their initial impression; the PEM duty
title wasn’t there to help make a more favorable first impression of
her record.
In support of her appeal, the applicant submitted a copy of her
Officer Selection Brief and duty history.
Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.
_________________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
The 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 CY99A Lieutenant Selection Board.
________________________________________________________________
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
AFPC/DPAS stated that he applicant’s Duty Title on her OSB from Jun 95
to Jul 98 incorrectly read “Chief, Financial Management Branch”, which
was her new position in SAF/FMB beginning Jul 98. From Jun 95 to Jul
98 she actually worked in SAF/AQS as the “Special Projects Program
Element Monitor.” This error has been corrected in her record.
AFPC/DPAS complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.
AFPC/DPPPO recommended denial and states the AFI 36-2501, paragraph
6.3.2.2. specifically states “Do not have an SSB if, by exercising
reasonable diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or
omission and could have taken corrective action before the originally
schedule board convened.” In this case, the applicant has not
provided proof that she “exercised reasonable diligence” to correct
these errors prior to his promotion board.
AFPC/DPPPO complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.
_________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
Complete copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to
applicant on 27 Nov 02 for review and comment. 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 an error or injustice. After reviewing the evidence
of record, the of the Board is not convinced that the applicant
exercised reasonable diligence in having her record up-to-date prior
to the convening of the selection board in question. Applicant states
that she discovered the error on her preselection brief (POB) prior to
the selection board but failed to make the necessary changes. In this
respect, the Board notes that she has not provided sufficient evidence
to show she did not receive her selection brief 90 days prior to the
convening of the selection board. Therefore, we agree with the
recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as
the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain
her burden that she has suffered either an error or an injustice. In
view of the above and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
Board does not recommend favorable action on this application.
_________________________________________________________________
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not
demonstrate the existence of a 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 Docket Number 02-02349
in Executive Session on 29 January 2003, under the provisions of AFI
36-2603:
Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Panel Chair
Mr. Joseph A. Roj, Member
Ms. Martha Evans, Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 18 Jul 02, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPAS, undated.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 20 Nov 02
Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 27 Nov 02.
PHILIP SHEUERMAN
Panel Chair
Her most recent assignment and duty title of Chief, Product Line Division, at Hanscom AFB, MA, effective 26 November 1999, be updated on the officer selection brief (OSB) reviewed by the CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board; 2. In support, the applicant provided copies of the OSB dated 24 November 1999; a Memorandum for Record--Board Discrepancy Report for Board PO599B, dated 19 November 1999; the Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 October 1999; the order, citation and...
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-2002-01451
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01451 INDEX CODE: 131.01 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2001B (CY01B) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, be amended in the "Assignment History" section by adding the duty title of “Joint Information...
AF | BCMR | CY2002 | BC-2002-01456
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.” Although the applicant attempted to correct the deficiency, she did not follow-up on the error until after the board. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00892
HQ AFPC/DPAO and DPAOM6 confirmed the applicant’s duty history should have reflected the assignments he requests in this appeal (See Exhibits C and D). _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT: The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for the Calendar Year 2003A (CY03A) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board was amended as...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03645
The evaluation is at Exhibit E. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response that is at Exhibit G. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. Therefore, the majority recommends his record, to include an OSB reflecting his correct duty history, be considered for promotion by SSB for the CY00A lieutenant colonel...
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...
AF | BCMR | CY2004 | BC-2004-00225
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBERS: BC-2004-00225 IDEX CODE 131.01 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Assignment History section of his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reflect a command level of “NAF” versus “DD/J” for the 23 Dec 97 entry, and the 30 Nov 99 entry be removed in its entirety. A complete copy of the evaluation is at...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-02012
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 02-01476 COUNSEL: None HEARING DESIRED: No _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: The Officer Performance Report (OPR) for the period 21 June 1998 through 4 May 1999 be declared void and removed from his records and he receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY98C, CY99A, and...
Although the JSAM was not reflected on the OSB, the citation was on file in the OSR and, therefore, present for the board’s consideration. The Air Force acknowledges that while the JSAM was not reflected on applicant’s OSB, the citation was a part of her selection record that was reviewed by the promotion board. It is highly unlikely this was the cause of her nonselection since central boards evaluate the entire officer record.