AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

HEARING DESIRED:  NO 

 
DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2010-00126 
INDEX CODE:  131.00 
COUNSEL:  NONE 

IN THE MATTER OF: 
   
  XXXXXXXXXXXX 
 
   
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 
 
He be granted Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by the 
CY07B (27 Nov 07) (P0507B), CY08B (8 Sep 08) (P0508B), and CY09B 
(8 Jun 09) (P0509B) Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Central Selection 
Board (CSBs) with inclusion of the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) 
citation in his Officer Selection Record (OSR). 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 
 
The  Air  Force  Personnel  Center  (AFPC)  data  base  includes  the 
order  for  his  basic  AAM  awarded  on  9  May  01.    The  annotation 
includes “Best Available Document.”  The system does not include 
the  citation  to  accompany  the  award,  which  describes  actions 
during Operations SOUTHERN WATCH from 15 Jan 00 to 22 Feb 00.   
 
In  support  of  his  request,  the  applicant  submits  copies  of 
Special Order G0-016 and the AAM citation. 
 
The  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  is  currently  assigned  as 
Executive  Officer/T-38C  PIT  IP  in  the  grade  of  major  having 
assumed that grade effective and with a date of rank of 1 Sep 03.  
He has three nonselections to the grade of Lt Col. 
 
The  remaining  relevant  facts  pertaining  to  this  application, 
extracted from the applicant’s military records, are contained in 
the letter prepared by the appropriate office of the Air Force at 
Exhibit C. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 

 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
HQ AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial.   
 
DPSOO  states  the  Special  Order  (SO)  awarding  the  applicant  the 
AAM was filed in his record on 26 Sep 07.  Air Force Instruction 
36-2608,  Military  Personnel  Records  System,  states  that  orders 
granting  decorations  may  be  filed  and  maintained  when  a  like 
citation  is  not  available.    Therefore,  the  AAM  SO  filed  in  his 
OSR  was  sufficient  for  the  board  members  to  review  and  factor 
into  the  promotion  selection  process.    Additionally,  the  AAM  SO 
was reflected on the applicant’s Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) 
and  thus  reviewed  by  the  boards.    The  citation  was  subsequently 
filed in his OSR on 26 Jan 10. 
 
DPSOO  states  it  is  the  officer’s  responsibility  to  ensure  the 
accuracy  of  his  OSR  prior  to  each  eligible  promotion  board  and 
not  after  nonselection  for  promotion.    DPSOO  notes  each  officer 
eligible  for  promotion  is  advised  of  the  entitlement  to 
communicate  with  the  board  president  any  matter  of  record 
concerning  their  promotion  consideration;  therefore,  the 
applicant  could  have  written  a  letter  to  the  board  members 
explaining  the  absence  of  the  AAM  citation  and  listed  his 
accomplishments.  He did not elect to exercise this entitlement. 
 
DPSOO  opines  the  applicant  has  not  demonstrated  he  exercised 
reasonable diligence in ensuring his record was correct prior to 
the convening of the board.  In addition, the absence of the AAM 
citation  is  not  a  material  error  since  the  SO  was  filed  in  its 
place  and  the  board  members  were  able  to  consider  it  in  the 
promotion selection process. 
 
The complete DPSOO evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit B. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 
 
The  applicant  states  his  actions  to  correct  his  record  were 
timely.  He opines the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
incorrectly  infers  his  motive  for  requesting  SSB  is  due  to  his 
nonselection.    The  SO  was  published  on  9  May  01,  but  was  never 
correctly filed with AFPC.  The copy on file with AFPC was faxed 
to him on 11 Jan 06, over a year before his primary Lt Col board 
consideration.   
 
He  disagrees  that  a  SO  replaces  the  detailed  text  of  a  medal 
citation.    He  opines  it  is  standard  practice  for  the  decoration 
citation  to  accompany  the  Promotion  Recommendation  File  and 
orders  are  simply  placeholders  of  the  fact  that  some  event 
garnered recognition.  He feels if SOs were the normal method to 
convey accomplishments, every Promotion Recommendation File would 
include only the SO and bases his argument on the fact that AFPC 

 

2 

 

removed  the  SO  in  question  and  replaced  it  with  the  award 
citation in the records database. 
 
_________________________________________________________________ 
 
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.  The applicant’s 
contentions  are  duly  noted;  however,  other  than  his  own 
assertions, we have seen no evidence by the applicant that would 
lead  us  to  believe  that  he  was  not  properly  considered  for 
promotion during the time in question or that his OSR reviewed by 
the CY07B, CY08B,  and CY09B Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection 
Boards  was  in  error.    Although  the  applicant  argues  it  is 
standard  practice  for  the  decoration  citation  to  be  included  in 
the  OSR,  we  note  that  policy  states  the  SO  may  be  used  when  the 
decoration  citation  is  not  available.    The  applicant  has  not 
provided  evidence  which  would  lead  us  to  believe  his  record  was 
inaccurate when considered by the selection board in question or 
that he was not afforded the same opportunity given to others in 
similar  situations.    Therefore,  we  agree  with  the  opinion  and 
recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility 
and adopt its rationale as the basis for our decision to deny the 
applicant’s request for SSB consideration. 
 
________________________________________________________________ 
 
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. 
 
_______________________________________________________________ 
 

 

3 

 

The following members of the Board considered this application in 
Executive  Session  on  19  Oct  10,  under  the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603: 
 
 

, Panel Chair 
, Member 
, Member 

 
 
The  following  documentary  evidence  was  considered  in  AFBCMR  BC-
2010-00126: 
 
    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 6 Jan 10, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPSOO dated 17 Feb 10. 
    Exhibit C.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 19 Mar 10. 
    Exhibit D.  Letter, Applicant, dated 3 May 10, w/atchs. 
 
 
 
                                    
                                   Panel Chair 

 

4