RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER: BC-1999-01112
INDEX CODE:  100.00, 111.01, 131.00

		COUNSEL:  None

		HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be provided promotion reconsideration by the Calendar Year 1998C (CY98C) (1 Dec 98) Central Colonel Board with corrections to his officer selection brief (OSB) and his Officer Effectiveness Report (OER) rendered for the period 13 May 83 through 12 May 84.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Duty Air Force Specialty Codes (DAFSCs) on his OSB should read as follows:

	31 Jan 84 – His DAFSC as reads “1555C” and duty title as reads “Weapon Systems Officer F‑4E” should read “K155C” Instructor Weapons Systems Officer.”

	13 May 84 – His DAFSC as reads “1555C” should read “M1555C” based on the OER, dated 13 May 84 through 7 Jan 85.

	9 Jul 98 – His DAFSC as reads “12F4U” should read “C12F4U” based on the attached AF Form 35 (Request and Authorization for Assumption of/Appointment to Command), effective 9 Jul 98 and based on his being assigned to the unit commander’s billet.

His OER closing 12 May 84 has the wrong duty title/DAFSC.  It should have reflected that he was an Instructor Weapons System Officer-K1555C.

He states that although he and other members of the Xrd Air Support Operations Group (ASOG) made numerous attempts to correct his duty title and AFSC to the commander, he did not receive a copy of the OSB until after the board met (14 Jan 99).

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFSMD) is 19 May 74.  He is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of lieutenant colonel, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Dec 93.

Applicant’s OER/Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since 1983 reflects the following:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             28 Mar 83                   1-1-1
             12 May 83        Education/Training Report (TR)
           * 12 May 84                   1-1-1
              7 Jan 85                   1-1-1
             23 Aug 85                   1-1-1
             15 May 86                   1-1-1
             14 Nov 86                   1-1-1
             14 Nov 87                   1-1-1
             14 Nov 88               Meets Standards
             30 Jun 89               Meets Standards
             30 May 90                Education/TR
             30 May 91               Meets Standards
             30 May 92               Meets Standards
              1 Mar 93               Meets Standards
              1 Oct 93               Meets Standards
              1 Oct 94               Meets Standards
              3 Sep 95               Meets Standards
             16 Jul 96               Meets Standards
              6 Mar 97               Meets Standards
              4 Jan 98               Meets Standards
              8 Jul 98               Meets Standards
              4 May 99               Meets Standards

     * Contested report.

Applicant has two nonselections for promotion to the grade of colonel by the CY98C and CY99A (2 Aug 99) Central Colonel Boards.

The Air Force indicated the applicant’s 13 May 84 DAFSC as reads “1555C” has been changed in the Personnel Data System (PDS) to read “M1555C” and has been verified by the applicant’s Assignment Officer.

Applicant’s 9 Jul 98 DAFSC as reads “12F4U” has been changed in the PDS to read “C12F4U” and has been verified by the applicant’s Assignment Officer.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The XXXXX, Assignment Information Systems Branch, AFPC/DPAPS, reviewed this application and indicated that, in regard to applicant’s contentions that his DAFSC as reads “1555C” and duty title as reads “Weapon Systems Officer F‑4E” should read “K1555C, Instructor Weapons Systems Officer,” based on the OER closing 12 May 84, they cannot concur with the applicant until the OER is successfully appealed to show the “K1555C, Instructor Weapons System Officer” information.

A complete copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The XXXXX, Promotion, Evaluation & Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP, also reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant has waited 15 years to file and took no action on the claims before that.  He has inexcusably delayed his appeal (providing no explanation) and, as a result, the Air Force no longer has documents on file, memories fade, and this complicates the ability to determine the merits of his position.  In short, the Air Force asserts that the applicant’s unreasonable delay regarding a matter now dating back 15 years has greatly complicated its ability to determine the merits of the applicant’s position.  Further, he provided nothing convincing that the errors were not discoverable until Jan 99 nor has he offered a concrete explanation for filing late.

DPPP states that AFPC/DPAPS addressed the duty history issues in their advisory and concurred with the applicant’s contentions regarding the 9 Jul 98 and 13 May 84 duty history entries and made the necessary changes in the PDS.  However, DPAPS did not concur with the applicant’s request regarding his 31 Jan 84 duty history entry and will not be able to make any changes “until the OER is successfully appealed…”  DPPP accepts their findings and adds the following for the Board’s consideration.  They do not support promotion reconsideration on the changes made to the PDS by AFPC/DPAPS as DPPP considers the changes administrative and harmless in nature.

In researching the applicant’s contentions, DPPP confirmed the two 1984 duty history entries have been reflected in the PDS exactly as they are now since the CY86B (1 Dec 86) major board when the applicant was first considered below-the-promotion zone (BPZ).  This would include all OSBs prepared for his major and lieutenant colonel boards-of which, DPPP adds, boards that selected him for promotion to those grades.  In addition, the applicant would have also received officer preselection briefs (OPBs) for each of these boards for which he was considered-up to and including the most recent CY98C board.  The OPB is sent to each eligible officer several months prior to a selection board.  The OPB contains data that will appear on the OSB at the central board.  Written instructions attached to the OPB and given to the officer before the central selection board specifically instruct him/her to carefully examine the brief for completeness and accuracy.  If any errors are found, he/she must take corrective action prior to the selection board, not after it.  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”.  Given the fact that this information has been on the applicant’s duty history since, at least, 1986, it is evident that he has not exercised reasonable diligence.  As such, DPPP does not support promotion reconsideration.
In regard to the applicant’s contentions that the DAFSC and duty title on the contested 12 May 84 OER are in error, statements from the evaluators during the contested period are absent.  In order to successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation report, it is important to hear from the evaluators—not necessarily for support, but at least for clarification/explanation and the applicant has not provided any such documentation.  Without benefit of these statements, DPPP can only conclude the OER is accurate as written.  If its content was going to handicap the applicant’s future promotions, then it would have happened, at the very least, when he was considered and selected for the grade of major since this document was closer to the top of his record when he was considered and selected by the CY87 (28 Sep 87) major selection board.

DPPP further states that while it may be argued that the contested OER and duty history entries were factors in the applicant’s nonselection, there is no clear evidence that they negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire officer selection record (OSR) (including the promotion recommendation form (PRF), OPRs, OERs, training reports, letters of evaluation, decorations, and OSB), assessing whole person factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership, and academic and professional military education (PME).  DPPP is not convinced the contested errors contributed to the applicant’s nonselection and strongly encourage the Board to time-bar the request for promotion reconsideration as it pertains to the 1984 duty history entries and the 12 Mar 84 OER.  If, however, the Board considers the application on merit, then DPPP recommends denial of all of the applicant’s requests.

A complete copy of their evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to applicant on 9 Aug 99 for review and response.  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 probable error or injustice.  The Air Force has indicated that the 13 May 84 and 9 Jul 98 DAFSCs have been updated.  Therefore, in regard to applicant’s request for further corrections to the contested OSB and OER closing 12 May 84, after a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that his 31 Jan 84 DAFSC and duty title on his OSB or the duty title and DAFSC on the contested OER should be changed.  In this respect, as stated by the Air Force in regard to the contested OER, if its content was going to handicap the applicant’s future promotions, then it would have happened, at the very least, when he was considered and selected for the grade of major since the OER was closer to the top of his record when he was considered and selected by the CY87 major selection board.  While it may be argued that the contested DAFSC and duty title were factors in the applicant’s nonselection, there is no clear evidence that it negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  Further, as the Air Force has indicated, central boards evaluate the entire officer record and without clear-cut evidence to the contrary, it is highly unlikely the incorrect DAFSC and duty title was the cause of applicant’s nonselection.  In view of the foregoing, 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 his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice.  Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable 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 this application in Executive Session on 27 April 2000, under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36‑2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPS, dated 6 May 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 23 Jul 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Aug 99.