RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04279 

 COUNSEL: NONE 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

1. The correct squadron and “B” prefix be added to his 7 Dec 09, 
duty entry on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB). 

 

2. His Officer Performance Report (OPR) rendered for the period 
24 Mar 09 to 5 Jan 10 be replaced with a reaccomplished OPR with 
better stratifications. 

 

3. He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration by 
the P0510A Central Selection Board (CSB). 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

He verified his duty title as Director of Operations was correct 
prior to the P0510A CSB convening, but did not realize he was 
supposed to have a “B” prefix on his DAFSC until he received his 
Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) for the CY11A Lt Col CSB. 

 

During his non-selection counseling session, he was advised the 
stratifications on his “top” OPR were not very strong and if his 
leadership was willing to change the OPR to include “stonger” 
stratifications to submit an appeal. 

 

In support of his request, the applicant provides copies of his 
CY10A and CY11A Lt Col Line of the Air Force (LAF) CSB OSB, a 
consolidated single unit retrieval format (SURF), the contested 
OPR and reaccomplished OPR, and a memorandum. 

 

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

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in 
the grade of major, having assumed that grade effective and with 
a date of rank of 1 August 2006. 

 

The applicant submitted two DD Forms 149, Application for 
Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, 
US Code, Section 1552. 


 

The applicant was considered but not selected for promotion to 
Lt Col by the CY10A and CY11A Lt Col CSBs, which convened on 
8 Mar 10 and 7 Mar 11, respectively. 

 

The applicant did file an appeal through the Evaluation Reports 
Appeals Board (ERAB) under the provisions of AFI 36-2401, Correcting Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Reports. However, 
the ERAB was not convinced there was an error or injustice and 
disapproved the applicant’s requested relief. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

AFPC/DPSID recommends denial of the applicant’s request to 
replace the contested OPR. DPSID states “the willingness of 
evaluators to change a report is not enough. You must offer 
clear evidence the original evaluation was unjust or wrong”. 
The report had been in the applicant’s record since 
14 Jan 10 and there was no problem with the OPR until the 
applicant was not selected for promotion. It was not until he 
requested non-select counseling and was advised the 
stratification was not strong and if the rating chain decided to 
re-accomplish the report a request could be submitted. 

 

Requests to add optional statements (such as Professional 
Military Education (PME), job/commamd “push” recommendation, or 
stratification) to an evaluation report or PRF will normally not 
form the basis for a successful appeal. As the statements are 
not mandatory for inclusion, their omission does not make the 
report inaccurate. You must prove the report is erroneous or 
unjust based on its content. In addition, there were additional 
changes on the re-accomplished OPR which was submitted and no 
compelling justification for these additional changes from the 
applicant or the rating chain was provided. 

 

DPSID states there is no evidence the original evaluation was 
inaccurate at the time it was completed nor is there any 
evidence that an injustice occurred. 

 

The complete DPSID evaluation is at Exhibit C. 

 

AFPC/DPAOO5 does not provide a recommendation. DPAOO5 states 
the applicant’s OSB and SURF did not contain the “B” prefix 
indicating he was the Director of Operations when his record met 
the CY10A Lt Col CSB. His OSB did not reflect the correct 
squadron. Also, his OSB did not reflect the correct squadron 
for the CY11A CSB. 

 

However, the applicant’s record in the military personnel data 
system (MilPDS) has been corrected to reflect the “B” prefix and 
the correct squadron. 

 


The complete DPAOO5 evaluation is at Exhibit D. 

 

AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial of the applicant’s request for SSB 
consideration. DPSOO states HQ AFPC/DPAOO5, Weather Officer 
Assignments, verified that the “B” prefix denoting that he was 
the Director of Operations was not properly reflected on his 
DAFSC. However, CSBs evaluate the entire selection record to 
include the PRF, OPRs, training reports (TRs), letters of 
evaluation (LOE), decorations, and data on the OSB. The board 
members assess whole-person factors such as job performance and 
responsibility, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, 
academic and PME, and distinctions when rendering their 
decision. As such, they do not believe the single incorrect 
DAFSC reflected on his P0510A OSB caused his nonselection for 
promotion to Lt Col. 

 

The applicant mentions in his first application, while reviewing 
his P0511A OPB he noted an incorrect squadron was reflected in 
the organization section for his duty title entry effective 
7 Dec 09. DPSOO obtained a copy of his P0511A OSB and verified 
that although it was incorrect on his OPB the “weather squadron” 
was correctly reflected on his P0511A OSB. 

 

The complete DPSOO evaluation is at Exhibit E. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: 

 

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the 
applicant on 9 Aug 11, for review and comment within 30 days 
(Exhibit F). As of this date, this office has not received a 
response. 

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

 

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, we are not persuaded the 
applicant’s records are erroneous or unjust. The applicant’s 
contentions are noted; however, in our opinion, they have been 
adequately addressed in the detailed comments provided by the 
appropriate Air Force offices of primary responsibility. 
Therefore, 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 the applicant has not 


been the victim of an error or injustice. In the absence of 
persuasive 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 an 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-
2010-04279 in Executive Session on 22 Sep 11, under the 
provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

 Panel Chair 

 Member 

 Member 

 

The following documentary evidence pertaining was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 10 and 24 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

Exhibit C. HQ AFPC/DPSID, Letter, dated 26 Mar 11. 

 Exhibit D. HQ AFPC/DPAOO5, Letter, dated 9 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit E. HQ AFPC/DPSOO, Letter, dated 29 Jun 11. 

 Exhibit F. SAF/MRBC, Letter, dated 9 Aug 11, w/atchs. 

 

 

 

 

 
Panel Chair