RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00973 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His Assignment History on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be 
corrected to show a duty title of “Chief, Wing Plans & 
Programs/F-16 Instructor Pilot (IP),” and his organizational 
level as “Wing” rather than “Squadron” and that his corrected 
record receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for 
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the Calendar 
Year 2009B (CY09B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board 
(CSB). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

When looking at his career snapshot in the OSB, board members 
may have missed emphasis on his progression to the wing level or 
garnered the wrong impression from inconsistencies. He believes 
either of these perceptions could have adversely biased review 
of information in his record. 

 

In conjunction with seven months as chief of a wing agency not 
being documented due to timing of the latest officer performance 
report (OPR), the error in his assignment history may have 
contributed to an inaccurate portrayal of his recent career for 
board assessment. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal 
statement and a copy of his OSB, prepared 4 Jun 09. 

 

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

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant, a major was serving as the Chief, Wing Plans and 
Programs F-16IP, with a date of rank (DOR) and an effective date 
of promotion to the grade of major of 1 Aug 05. 

 

 

 

The applicant’s OPR profile of the last ten reports follows: 


 

 PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 

 

 07 Apr 01 Meet Standards (MS) 

 07 Apr 02 MS 

 07 Apr 03 MS 

 07 Apr 04 MS 

 28 Aug 05 MS 

 26 Sep 06 MS 

 26 Sep 07 MS 

 02 Apr 08 Training Report (TR) 

 #05 Nov 08 MS 

 05 Nov 09 MS 

 

# Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for 
promotion by the CY09B Lieutenant Colonel CSB. 

 

AFPC/DPAOC will administratively correct the applicant’s OSB to 
reflect in Assignment History, Duty Status Code, Organization, 
as “Fighter – WG – Luke.” 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. They note, the applicant did not 
exercise due diligence prior to the convening of the board. 
Additionally, updating the OSB to include the corrected 
organization data would not introduce any new information that 
was not already considered by the CY09B CSB. 

 

Eligible officers meeting the CY09B CSB were provided with an 
Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) several months prior to the 
CSB. The OPB mirrors the data that will appear on the OSB at 
the central board. The written instructions attached to the OPB 
specifically instruct the officer to carefully examine the brief 
for completeness and accuracy. For updates to the assignment 
history, the officer must contact the Air Force Contact Center 
with source documentation before any updates to the assignment 
history can take place. The applicant has not provided any 
evidence that he attempted to correct the error prior to the 
P0509B CSB. 

 

Although, his P0509B OSB did not reflect the correct 
organization for duty title entry effective 1 Jun 08, his OPR 
closing 5 Nov 08 contained the correct information, which the 
board members saw and took into consideration in evaluating his 
record. As such, the corrected duty history data does not 
introduce any new information that was not already considered by 
the board members. The Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS) 
reflects the correct information. 

 

DPSOO is not convinced the contested error in the applicant’s 
OSB cause his nonselection for promotion since central boards 
evaluate the selection record to include the promotion 


recommendation form, OPRs, officer effectiveness reports (OERs), 
TRs, letters of evaluation, decorations, and data on the OSB. 
The board members assess the whole person factor such as job 
performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of 
experience, leadership and academic and professional military 
education (PME) when rendering their decision 

 

The AFPC/DPSOO complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

The error of discussion is readily apparent and seems simplistic 
for identification and correction. As a result, as noted, this 
oversight has generated concern regarding due diligence, which 
is also his concern. He did find and correct errors in the duty 
titles and worked to update his academic record. A significant 
portion of his duty during that period was dedicated to 
instructing at the squadron level, possibly making the error 
less apparent. Whatever the cause, the oversight was a mistake 
rather than one of negligence or complacency. The error became 
apparent in a subsequent OPB which correlated a squadron duty 
title with “WG” organization. The different label uniquely 
stood out from the rest, highlighted errors in the two most 
recent duty history lines, and would have generated a different 
perspective on the OPB of discussion if correctly annotated the 
first time. 

 

His accomplishments, awards and decorations, and stratifications 
are reflective of a unique “depth and breadth of experience” for 
his career field. His job performance and leadership, other 
noteworthy points in the review is annotated well in his 
records. However, his concern going into the board, relates to 
the point of “professional qualities” or related perceptions, 
areas that are more difficult to qualify or quantify. He is 
appealing to the acknowledgment that it is viable for the 
smallest detail to negate an otherwise competitive record or 
become a deciding factor. His concern remains that up-front 
emphasis on wing-level experience was potentially missed in the 
first impression and conversely the presentation of an error may 
have tainted his career successes. 

 

The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is 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 error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, in our view, the Air Force office of primary 
responsibility has conducted a thorough review of the evidence 
of record and has adequately addressed the issues presented by 
the applicant. Therefore, we adopt the rationale expressed as 
the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain 
his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice. 
While we note the applicant’s contentions that his oversight in 
getting his OSB corrected prior to the promotion board convening 
was a mistake rather than negligence, unfortunately, he failed 
to exercise due diligence in insuring the accuracy of his 
records as expected of him and others similarly situated. In 
the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to 
recommend granting the relief sought in this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the 
application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-00973 in Executive Session on 2 November 2010, 
under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 27 Apr 10. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 10. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jun 10. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair