RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00862
		INDEX NUMBER:  131.00

	XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX	COUNSEL:  None

	XXX-XX-XXXX	HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His assignment history be corrected to show only one assignment at HQ USAF effective 31 Dec 98.

He be considered for promotion to lieutenant colonel by special selection board (SSB) by the CY00A (28 Nov 00) central lieutenant colonel selection board

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Assignment History misrepresented his duties to the CY00A lieutenant colonel selection board, which precluded him from fair and equitable consideration for promotion.

Upon reviewing his records in preparation for his Below-the-Zone promotion board, he discovered that his Officer Pre-selection Brief no longer showed him assigned to Headquarters Air Force.  Instead, the brief showed him assigned to an Air Force Logistics Management Agency (AFLMA) position.  He immediately sought help from Executive Services to correct the history and was informed that Headquarters Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) had directed his reassignment to an AFLMA position.  The applicant states that he was not aware that he was hired under the AFLMA position because all HQ Air Force positions in his division were fully manned.  He states that when he was requested to come to work at HQ Air Force, he fully expected to be assigned to a HQ Air Force billet.  In addition, to meet Air Force needs as well as maintain solid career progression, he agreed to move on short notice, relinquishing command four months early.  Upon further research, he found that he had originally been double billeted against a HQ Air Force billet.  As a result his Assignment History reflected that he was assigned to HQ Air Force for only six months, i.e., from 31 Dec 98 to 28 Jul 99.  He states that he is not attached to AFLMA other than the fact that he occupies one of their position numbers.

He addressed his concerns to his superiors regarding the potential implications for damaging career progression.  Based on the strength of his records and the potential confusion a letter to the board might cause, he was advised by his superiors against writing the board.

The applicant states that his promotion opportunity was adversely impacted for two reasons:

	    A.  His Assignment History, a critical component of the Officer Selection Record, showed him assigned to HQ Air Force, a four-year tour, for only six months.  He also received an Officer Performance Report (OPR) that closed out during the period he was assigned to the HQ Air Force position.  The board may have considered the short time he was assigned to the HQ Air Force position, the 180 day OPR and his reassignment to an AFLMA position within 30 days of OPR closeout derogatory.

B.  Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, Table 3.1, line nine states: “The goal is an accurate description of where and to whom the ratee belongs.  His OPRs reflect in block 8, “Organization” that he is assigned to the DCS/Installations and Logistics, (HAF) Pentagon.  This would be correct if his Assignment History reflected Headquarters Air Force (HAF).  His Assignment History, however, reflects AFLMA, in which case, his OPRs should reflect “With duty at…” to indicate the organization where the officer actually performed duty.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the grade of major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 24 July 1985.  A review of his last ten OPRs reflect overall ratings of “meets standards.”  The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY00A (28 Nov 00) central lieutenant colonel selection board.  

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAPP1 evaluated this application in regards to the applicant’s contention of incorrect duty history entries.  They determined that the applicant’s duty history was correct at the time he was considered for promotion by the CY00A lieutenant colonel selection board.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO also evaluated this application and recommends denial of the applicant’s request for promotion consideration by SSB.  They concur with the findings of AFPC/DPAPP1 regarding assignment duty history.

The applicant is correct in stating his duty history should only reflect one entry for “Chief, Information Systems Resource Branch” at HQ Air Force.  HQ AFPC/DPAPP1 compared the duty history entries to those duty titles on the applicant’s officer performance reports, and subsequently corrected the personnel data system (PDS).  Now there is only one entry for the applicant’s assignment at HQ Air Force.  The applicant, however, believes he is still assigned to the Pentagon.  According to his assignment functional officer in HQ AFPC/DPASL, he was reassigned in Jul 99 from position number 00387420N at the Pentagon to position number 00001571G, which is authorized at Air Force Logistics Management Admin (AFLMA).  This is not a HQ Air Force position, and therefore his duty history must reflect that he moved from HQ Air Force to AFLMA--thus the two separate entries with identical duty titles.  Although the Feb 00 duty entry is a duplicate of the Jul 99 entry, this minor error is purely administrative, and does not warrant SSB consideration.  The PDS was corrected and there were no other errors in the applicant’s record.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the evaluations in a five-page memorandum with nine attachments.  He states that since 31 Dec 98, he has performed his duties at the same location in the Pentagon and that his duties have not changed.  His orders assign him to HQ Air Force, Pentagon, ADM, VA 20330.  His orders do not assign him to AFLMA, a subordinate unit located at Gunter AFB, Alabama.  The applicant states that he believes there are two issues at hand--fairness and administrative material error.

As a matter of fairness, he requests SSB consideration.  He requests that all references to AFLMA be deleted from his duty history.  He has not been and is not now performing duties for AFLMA.  Displaying AFLMA in his duty history is incorrect and does not accurately and fairly portray the duties that he has been assigned.

As a matter of administrative material error, he requests SSB consideration.  He states that the administrative realignment from a HAF to an AFLMA position was accomplished without his knowledge or consent.  He states that the Air Staff used the AFLMA position to offset congressionally mandated manpower ceilings.  This “bureaucratic quagmire of the personnel system” impacted his promotion opportunity and he did not receive due process.

The applicant takes issue with the statement by AFPC/DPPAPP1 that “Based upon source documents, and assignments officer evaluation it was determined that officers duty history was correct at the time of the P0500A selection board.”  AFPC/DPPPO state that they concur with he findings of AFPC/DPAPP1 yet also state that “HQ AFPC/DPPAPP1 compared the duty history entries to those duty titles on the applicant’s officer performance reports, and subsequently corrected the personnel data system (PDS).”  According to the applicant, this contradicts earlier statements from both letters stating that his duty history was correct at the time of the promotion board.  The applicant states that his duty history has been changed five times since the promotion board.  He also doesn’t understand how AFPC/DPPAPP1 could use his OPRs to update the PDS since his OPRs all reflect HAF not AFLMA.

The applicant provides an account of the five changes made to his duty history and again points out the contradiction in the statements that his duty history was correct and that the PDS was corrected.  He also takes issue with the statement that the duplicate error in his assignment history is minor and purely administrative.  He points out that the “Four Tenets of Effective Officer Selection Records” highlights the importance of job titles/duty descriptions.  

The applicant states that the duplicate/AFLMA entries in his duty history may have given the board members the impression that he did not care about what was in his duty history.  Even if this was not the case, he believes the fact that he has AFLMA entries following a HAF tour is derogatory--especially within six months of being assigned to Headquarters Air Force.

The applicant further states that since AFPC/DPPPO contends that his duty history must reflect that he moved from HQ Air Force to AFLMA, several new issues are created that strengthen his case that an SSB is warranted.  Since he was reassigned on paper, he officially moved from one command level to another.  Moving from one command to another while staying in the same location would create a permanent change of assignment (PCA) according to his assignment functional officer.  This would generate a notification to the member requiring a signature of acceptance and acknowledgement.  This never occurred.  He states that he was never notified of the change and did not sign any paper work acknowledging or accepting the PCA.  He has since obtained a fax copy of the assignment worksheet that generated the PCA.  To his surprise, the “Volunteer” entry states “Yes”.  His functional assignment manager cannot explain how this occurred.  His OPR that closed out on 30 Jun 00 and the Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) that met the CY00A lieutenant colonel selection board would now be incorrect in several areas.  His assignment functional officer has confirmed this.  As his records now stand, there is direct conflict between his duty history, OPR, and PRF.  Either he is assigned to HQ Air Force and the AFLMA references should be deleted from his duty history or he is assigned to AFLMA in which case his OPR and PRF are incorrect.

The applicant points out the specific areas that his OPR and PRF would be incorrect if he is in fact assigned to AFLMA.  The applicant states that since 31 Dec 98, his assigned duties have not changed.  His assignment history misrepresented his duties precluding him from receiving fair and equitable consideration during the CY00A lieutenant colonel selection board.  In order to maintain manpower, under congressionally mandated ceilings, he was reassigned to AFLMA without his knowledge or consent.  This action is derogatory and does not convey solid career progression, increased level of responsibility, and evidence of a successful leadership test.  In addition, the Officers Promotion Branch counselor and former promotion board members admit this discriminator may have caused confusion and /or detracted from his record.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_______________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

An additional evaluation was requested from AFPC/DPASL in regards to the applicant’s reassignment from a Headquarters Air Force position to one in the Air Force Logistics management Agency.  AFPC/DPASL provided the background on the applicant’s reassignment and again stressed that based on the applicant’s reassignment, his duty history was correct.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

AFPC/DPPPO also provided an additional evaluation to address the applicant’s request for an SSB.  Based on AFPC/DPASL’s conclusion that the applicant’s duty history was correct when he was considered for promotion, they again recommend that the applicant’s request for an SSB be denied.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT”S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant responded to the Additional Air Force Evaluations by indicating that the concerns outlined in his previous responses have not been addressed.

He notes that the conclusion by AFPC/DPASL that his duty history was correct at the time of his promotion board clearly contradicts a letter by his senior rater urging that his duty history be corrected.

The applicant also states that he is perplexed by the conclusion drawn by AFPC/DPPPO that an SSB is not warranted in his case, especially since the officer promotion counselor admitted that this may have been a factor in his non-selection for promotion.

He also notes that although AFPC/DPPPO states that there was no change in his command level of assignment, a current printout clearly shows that the command level for his assignment to AFLMA was changed from HAF to wing/base level.  This reflects that with the exception of six months credit at HAF, he was assigned at the wing/base level showing no progression of higher command level responsibilities.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit J.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  Based on our review of the evidence, it appears that the applicant was treated unfairly when he was transferred to a different position number while continuing to perform the same duties.  We note that although the command level, Major Command, and Organization indicated on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) may be correct based on the position number he was reassigned to, we question why the “Duty Title” remained the same although the OSB clearly indicates a change in “organization”.  It does not appear feasible that one job would exist in two separate organizations.  The Air Force has failed to adequately explain this.    It appears to us that the applicant’s duty section may have manipulated the position numbers for their purposes without regard to its impact on the applicant.  We again note that the applicant’s OPRs reflect his organization of assignment as U S Air Force, not the Logistics Management Agency.  While it cannot be said with certainty that the inconsistency between the applicant’s OSB and his performance reports contributed to his nonselection for promotion, we believe that any doubt should be resolved in his favor.  Therefore, we recommend that the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the CY00A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on         28 November 2000, be amended to delete the entries under the “Assignment History” section identified with the effective dates of 28 Jul 1999 and 16 Feb 2000.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY00A (28 Nov 00) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board with the corrected OSB.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 12 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

All members voted to correct the records, as recommended.  The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 9 May 01.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 1 Jun 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 11 Jul 01,
                 w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPASL, dated 24 Sep 01.
     Exhibit H.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 5 Nov 01.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Nov 01.
     Exhibit J.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 26 Nov 01, 
                 W/atch.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair

AFBCMR 01-00862

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

	Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is directed that:

	The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, be corrected to show that the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the CY00A Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 28 November 2000, be amended to delete in their entirety the entries under the “Assignment History” section identified with the effective dates of 28 Jul 1999 and 16 Feb 2000.

	It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY00A (28 Nov 00) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board with the corrected OSB.

		
		Director
		Air Force Review Boards Agency