RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-03165 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) considered by the Calendar 
Year (CY) 2006A (CY06A) (P0506A) Lieutenant Colonel Central 
Selection Board (CSB) be corrected to reflect his command in 
Bagdad. 

 

2. He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY06A Lieutenant 
Colonel CSB with the corrected record. 

 

3. If granted an SSB, that the Promotion Recommendation Form 
(PRF) rendered on him and viewed by the CY06A Lieutenant Colonel 
CSB be reaccomplished. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

The Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) and the United States 
Central Command Air Forces (USCENTAF) failed to update his duty 
history to reflect his command in Baghdad from 19 Apr to 30 Jun 
03, even though he held the position for more than sixty days. 

 

In Apr 10, he finally managed to correct his duty history. The 
absence of this duty title entry was a significant factor in him 
being passed over for promotion to lieutenant colonel in his 
primary zone. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides a personal 
statement, a letter from the Human Resources Advisor at Special 
Operations Command Central (SOCCENT) J1, an Officer SURF, an AF 
Form 77, Supplemental Evaluation Sheet, an Air Force Commendation 
Medal (AFCM) Certificate, his PRF for the P0506A CSB, and an 
Exception to Policy on Award Memorandum. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is presently serving on active duty in the grade of 
major with a date of rank of 1 Apr 02. His Total Active Federal 
Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 2 Apr 91. A review of the OPRs 
included in the applicant’s record for the CY06A Board, reflect 
overall ratings of “meets standards.” 

 


The applicant has six nonselections to the grade of lieutenant 
colonel by the P0506A, P0506C, P0507B, P0508B, P0509B, B0510A and 
Lieutenant Colonel CSBs. 

 

The applicant did not file an appeal through the Evaluation 
Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports; however, the 
ERAB reviewed his application and was not convinced the PRF was 
inaccurate or unjust. 

 

The remaining relevant facts pertaining to this case are contained 
in the evaluations prepared by the appropriate offices of the Air 
Force and can be found at Exhibits B and C. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
correct or replace his PRF. DPSID states the applicant was 
deployed from 19 Apr - 18 Jul 03 as a squadron commander. 
Beginning in Apr 04, the applicant tried to update his duty title 
to reflect his information as a deployed commander; however, this 
is not authorized. The applicant was told by many individuals, 
to include AFPC and USCENTAF that this was not authorized. 

 

When the applicant’s deployed commander Letters of Evaluations 
(LOEs) were written, they were not required to be filed in the 
Officer’s Selection Record (OSR) as it was an optional LOE. 
Although the LOE may not have been in his OSR, his Officer 
Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period of 17 Sep 02 - 
16 Sep 03 clearly stated he was the “first AF LRS CC.” The 
deployed commander duty title may not have been in his duty 
history, but the board members could have crossed referenced the 
comments on the PRF with the OPR. 

 

The document, AF Form 77, for deployed commanders, are now placed 
into the permanent record at the discretion of the Secretary of 
the Air Force(SECAF)/Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), 
ensuring the performance is captured into the permanent record. 
This program was implemented by Military Personnel Flight 
Memorandum 04-42, dated 25 Oct 04, effective with the 2004 Air 
Expeditionary Force (AEF) Cycle 5, Pairs 1 and 2, an LOE was 
mandatory for all deployed officers (AD, Guard, Reserve) through 
the grade of colonel serving as commanders for 45 days or more in 
support of named operations. The applicant’s LOE closed out on 
18 Jul 03, over a year before the guidance took effect. The 
policy does not grandfather officers who served in deployed 
commander positions prior to the 2004 AEF Cycle 5. 

 

Although the applicant believes the board may not have seriously 
taken his responsibility and accomplishments as a commander in a 
combat zone, there is no evidence to support this. The applicant 
has failed to provide a reaccomplished report by the original 
Senior Rater and also get the support of the Senior Rater and the 
Management Level Review (MLR) president. 

 


A report is considered to represent the rating chain’s best 
judgment at the time it is rendered. Once a report is accepted 
for file, only strong evidence to the contrary warrants 
correction or removal from an individual’s record. The burden of 
proof is on the applicant. The applicant has not substantiated 
the contested report was not rendered in good faith by all 
evaluators based on knowledge available at the time. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit B. 

 

AFPC/DPASL agrees with the findings of DPSID. DPASL is unable to 
support the applicant’s request to add “LRS Squadron Commander” 
to his duty history based on the policies in place at the time of 
his AEF command. 

 

The complete DPASL evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB 
consideration. DPSOO states after a review of the complete 
application and the advisories prepared by DPSID and DPASL they 
must recommend denial. 

 

On 7 Apr 10, the USAF Human Resources Advisor at USCENTAF updated 
the duty title entry effective 19 Apr 03 as “Cdr, 447 Exped Log 
Sq;” however, after receiving proper guidance, the deployed 
commander duty title was removed. 

 

DPSOO states Central boards evaluate the entire selection record 
to include PRFs, OPRs, officer effectiveness reports, training 
reports, LOEs, decorations, and data on the OSB. The board 
members assess whole person factors such as job performance, 
professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, 
leadership and academic and professional military education when 
rendering their decision. As such, the absence of an 
unauthorized duty title did not cause his nonselection for 
promotion to lieutenant colonel. 

 

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

On 14 Apr 11, copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded 
to the applicant for review and comment within 30 days. To date, 
a response has not been received (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, we agree with the opinions and recommendations 
of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility 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 
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 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 
BC-2010-03165 in Executive Session on 24 May 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 , Panel Chair 

 , Member 

 , Member 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 25 Aug 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSID, dated 24 Jan 11. 

 Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPASL, dated 3 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit D. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 24 Feb 11. 

 Exhibit E. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 14 Apr 11. 

 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair