RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02359
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be given Special Selection Board (SSB)consideration for promotion to the grade of major by the Calendar Year 2002A (CY02A) Central Major Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her Officer Selection Brief (OSB) used during the CY02A board was in error in that an erroneous date of separation (DOS) was present; that the error was discovered by the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) after she was not selected for promotion; and, that  her record was considered by an SSB on 6 May 02 with this correction made, but with no opportunity for her to examine the record for other errors that might have affected the outcome of the board.  This SSB was conducted for her record in a way that was highly unusual.  Since the results of the central selection board had not been released, and because AFPC was attempting to correct their mistake regarding DOS indications, she was not given the benefit of nonselection counseling.  Such counseling would have brought to her attention the affect that these errors might have had on her record.  Most importantly, her preparation for the SSB could have been more complete, which she believes would have resulted in her selection for promotion.

The SSB was presented nonselection records from the CY02A Major Board with the DOS masked and the knowledge that this indication meant the person being considered for promotion had a DOS on their previous record.  This practice will be in place for the upcoming promotion board, as well.  She believes this fact prevented the SSB from seeing her indefinite DOS and may have caused them to question her dedication to military service.  Even though her actual record was officially corrected by the time the SSB met, the promotion record seen by the SSB read the same as a person who truly intended to separate from military service.  With the strict promotion quotas and high level of competition seen at officer promotion boards, the masked DOS, which should have read “indefinite,” made her record less competitive.

Her Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) indicated an incorrect duty title.  The duty title that appeared at the promotion board was “Assistant Flight Commander, T-1 Instructor Pilot”.  The actual duty title that she held as of 26 Nov 01 was “Chief, Flight Support Operations/T-1 Instructor Pilot.”  This correct position indicates progression in responsibility and reflects a Flight Commander level job in the 32 Flying Training Squadron.  She asked for the duty title to be corrected prior to the date that the PRF was finalized, but no action was taken on her behalf.

According to the demographic data, her completion of Squadron Officer School (SOS) through correspondence put her at a disadvantage in comparison with her year group.  In 1999, when she was offered a quota slot for in-residence Professional Military Education (PME), the career emphasis was for all captains to attend in residence.  She accepted this training.  A short time after accepting the PME, she was informed that since she was pregnant, she would not be allowed to attend.  She was very frustrated by the turn of events, since she was able to get a waiver to fly while pregnant, but not to attend PME.  It is her understanding that Air Command and Staff College (ACSC), the next level of PME, does not prohibit pregnant members from attending.  She was not offered another in-residence slot, most likely because she was again pregnant as soon as her duty limitations were lifted from the first pregnancy.  In order to continue her career training, she elected to complete SOS by correspondence.  She feels this path was the only option available to her as a female officer with multiple pregnancies.  She does not feel that this method of PME completion should be counted as a penalty against a career for which she is very proud.

In support of her appeal, the applicant provided an expanded statement, copies of her OSB and CY02A PRF, and other documents associated with the matter under review.

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain, having been promoted to that grade on 27 May 96.  Her Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 27 May 92.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	 3 Dec 92	Meets Standards
	17 Dec 93	Training Report
	17 Dec 94	Meets Standards
	 1 Oct 95	Meets Standards
	 1 Oct 96	Meets Standards
	 1 Oct 97	Meets Standards
	 1 Oct 98	Meets Standards
	18 Oct 99	Meets Standards
	31 Aug 00	Meets Standards
  #	31 Aug 01	Meets Standards

# Top Report at the time she was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of major by the CY02A Central Major Selection Board.

On 6 May 02, the applicant was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of major by an SSB.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAO indicated that the applicant’s OSB displayed an incorrect picture of her assignment history and may have resulted in an incorrect representation of her career progression to the selection board.  They have confirmed that the applicant’s record has been updated and currently reflects her actual history as outlined in her application.  Additionally, they can confirm that the applicant’s request to withdraw her established DOS was received on 6 Feb 02 and approved on 22 Feb 02.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAO evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAP indicated that although the statistics provided appears to validate the assertion that the applicant's method of completion of SOS affected her promotion competitiveness, they could not validate that this was the reason she was not selected for promotion to major.  Furthermore, the statistics may not be an entirely accurate picture of the overall promotion results since the SSB results were not in the statistical analysis provided.  Therefore, AFPC/DPAP recommended that the applicant’s record be considered only if the other items addressed in her application warrant consideration.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPAP evaluation is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPEB recommended denial indicating that the applicant has not provided a new PRF with supportive documentation from the senior rater and management level review (MLR) president.  In addition, the applicant has not demonstrated she took corrective action upon receipt and review of her PRF prior to the CY02A board.

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPEB evaluation is at Exhibit E.

AFPC/DPPP recommended denial.  They indicated that although the applicant had requested that her voluntary DOS be withdrawn, it was not approved prior to the convening of the board.  Because she was affected by Stop Loss, her record and all those records with voluntary separation dates affected by Stop Loss had an AFPC-generated DOS updated on their OSB.  On 8 Apr 02, the applicant and all other Stop Loss-affected officers were provided the opportunity to meet an SSB with a corrected DOS, regardless of whether they were a select or nonselect of the central board.  No officer was given the opportunity to review his or her record for any other possible errors.  The applicant asked to meet the SSB and her DOS was changed to indefinite for the SSB.  As a side note, the applicant did write a letter to the 19 Feb 02 board, stating that she had withdrawn her voluntary separation and had every intention of remaining on active duty.  The applicant met the 6 May 02 SSB and was nonselected for promotion to major.

AFPC/DPPP stated that in the applicant’s letter to the 19 Feb 02 board, she indicated that she did not enroll in SOS while a younger captain because she was planning on separating.  She could have taken that opportunity to convey to the board why she could not complete it in residence.

Regarding the applicant’s contention that her PRF was incorrect, AFPC/DPPP indicated that the PRF process begins approximately 105 days prior to the board.  For the 19 Feb 02 major board, that would have been 6 Nov 01.  At that time, her duty history reflected her duty title as Assistant Flight Commander, T-1.  The applicant wrote a letter to the board stating that at the time the PRF was written she was working as a student assistant flight commander, thus validating what the PRF stated.  If the PRF was in error, the applicant could have explained it in her letter to the board.  In addition, her duty history accurately reflected her move to Chief Flight Ops Support/T-1 IP, effective 26 Nov 01, so the board was aware of her new position.

AFPC/DPPP stated that eligible officers are provided the opportunity to correspond by letter with their board to address any matter of record concerning themselves that they believe is important to their consideration.  The applicant did exercise this entitlement but did not address any of the data she contends to be relevant to her nonselection.  If she believed that her duty title on the PRF and resident SOS were relevant to the process, she could have provided this information in her letter to the board.  

A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPP evaluation is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A statement was provided from the Commander, 71st Flying Training Wing, the applicant’s senior rater, on her behalf, which is attached at Exhibit H.

Applicant reviewed the advisory opinion and furnished a detailed response.  She indicated the most compelling reason that she is requesting reconsideration is that she sought career counseling from the officer promotions section at AFPC, her former and current squadron and wing commanders, and her vice wing commander.  The colonels in this group have personnel, promotion board, and SSB experience.  Not one person found a reason that she should not be promoted.  Her record is strong.  She was hurt by the presence of an erroneous DOS and has been fighting to recover since that time.  The nonselection counselor went as far as to compare her record to the bottom five officers selected for promotion and the top five officers not selected for promotion.  The counselor felt that her record scored high enough to be promoted by a central selection board or an SSB.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit I.

_________________________________________________________________

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 error or injustice.  After a thorough review of the evidence presented, we are sufficiently persuaded that the applicant may not have been fairly and equitably considered for promotion to the grade of major by the CY02A Central Major Selection Board because of an inaccurate record.  In coming to this conclusion, we note the following issues:

	a.  The applicant's request for withdrawal of her voluntary DOS was not approved prior to the convening of the board.  Because she was affected by Stop Loss, it appears that her record had an AFPC-generated DOS updated on her OSB.  The applicant believes that the erroneous DOS may have caused the board to question her dedication to military service.  Her current senior rater, who was a panel president for the CY02A board supports her contention indicating that he believes that the primary reason for the applicant's nonselection for promotion was the erroneous DOS.  While the applicant was subsequently granted an SSB, but nonselected, by AFPC with her DOS changed to "indefinite," the senior rater believes that had the applicant's DOS paperwork been processed prior to the original board, she would have been promoted to major by that board.  Also, we note that the applicant was not given an opportunity to review her record prior to the SSB, nor was she afforded nonselection counseling.  The applicant asserts that had she been able to review her records, she would have been able to ensure the accuracy of her record prior to being considered for promotion by the SSB by having her duty history and CY02A PRF corrected to reflect the proper duty titles.

	b.  Regarding the applicant's contention that her CY02A PRF had an incorrect duty title, we note that her duty title changed prior to the convening of the board.  It appears that the applicant made efforts to have the duty title on the PRF changed to reflect her new duty title prior to the board, however, she apparently was advised that this could not be accomplished, although there seems to have been ample time to do so. 

	c.  We further note that the duty title on the applicant's CY02A OSB, with an effective date of 1 Sep 00, was incorrect.  There is no indication what steps, if any, were taken to correct this error prior to the convening of the bboard.  

	d.  The applicant's contentions regarding SOS completion in residence vice correspondence are duly noted. 

	e.  Lastly, we note that the applicant provided a letter to the board explaining the circumstances of the DOS and SOS.

4.  While it cannot be conclusively determined what impact the erroneous DOS and erroneous duty titles on the CY02A OSB and CY02A PRF may have had on the applicant’s promotion opportunity, in view of the totality of the circumstances of this situation and the high rate of promotion to the grade of major, we believe any doubt in this case should be resolved in her favor.  Further, her corrected record should be provided promotion consideration by an SSB.  However, in view of the corrections to be made, the letter she wrote to the board should also be removed because to do otherwise would defeat the purpose of correcting her record.  She should be provided the opportunity to write another letter to the board should she choose to do so.  Accordingly, we recommend that the applicant's records be corrected as set forth below.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that:

	a.  The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2002A Central Major Selection Board be amended in the "Service Data" Section to show an "Indefinite" Date of Separation (DOS); and, be amended in the “Assignment History” Section to show the duty title of "Assistant Flight Commander/T-1 Instructor Pilot,” with an effective date of 1 Sep 00, rather than "Line/T-1 Instructor Pilot."

	b.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2002A Central Major Selection Board be amended in Section III, Item 1, to show a duty title of Chief, Flight Operations Support/T-1, with an effective date of 26 Nov 01, rather than "Assistant Flight Commander/T-1 Instructor Pilot."

	c.  Her letter to the Calendar Year 2002A Central Major Selection Board, dated 12 Feb 02, be declared void and removed from her records.

It is further recommended that she be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2002A Central Major Selection Board with the corrected OSB and PRF.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02359 in Executive Session on 28 Jan 03, 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 3 Jul 02, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated 6 Aug 02.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAP, dated 26 Aug 02.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 24 Oct 02.
     Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 5 Nov 02.
     Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 15 Nov 02.
     Exhibit H.  Letter, in applicant's behalf, dated 6 Dec 02.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, applicant, dated 7 Dec 02, w/atch.

                                   

AFBCMR 02-02359

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 , be corrected to show that:

		a.  The Officer Selection Brief (OSB) prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2002A Central Major Selection Board be amended in the "Service Data" Section to show an "Indefinite" Date of Separation (DOS); and, be amended in the “Assignment History” Section to show the duty title of "Assistant Flight Commander/T-1 Instructor Pilot,” with an effective date of 1 Sep 00, rather than "Line/T-1 Instructor Pilot."

		b.  The Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF), AF Form 709, prepared for consideration by the Calendar Year 2002A Central Major Selection Board be amended in Section III, Item 1, to show a duty title of Chief, Flight Operations Support/T-1, rather than "Assistant Flight Commander/T-1 Instructor Pilot."

		c.  Her letter to the Calendar Year 2002A Central Major Selection Board, dated 12 Feb 02, be, and hereby is, declared void and removed from her records.

	It is further directed that she be considered for promotion to the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2002A Central Major Selection Board with the corrected OSB and PRF.