RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2003-00795
		INDEX CODE:  131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1. His Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 16 May 02 be replaced with a revised OPR that includes a recommendation for Professional Military Education (PME).  

2. His duty titles, including significant additional duties, from the period 2 June 1993 through 10 August 1996, his overseas duty history, Air Medal (AM) and Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM) be added to his Officer Performance Brief (OPB).  

3. The citation to accompany the award of the Air Force Commendation Medal (AFCM) for the period 27 July 1999 to 30 October 2002 be added to his Officer Selection Record (OSR). 

4. He be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board (SSB) for the calendar year 2002B (CY02B) central major selection board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His OPB was missing his duty titles from 2 June 1993 to 10 August 1996, significant additional duties on some of his duty titles, his overseas duty history, and his AM and AAM.  Additionally, his rater unintentionally left out a PME recommendation from his OPR that closed on 16 May 2002, and that his citation for his AFCM, was missing from his OSR.  He believes that, due to these administrative errors and injustices, his OSR did not properly represent him or his career when he met the CY02B central major selection board.

In support of his appeal, the applicant has provided a personal statement, a copy of the corrected OPR, copies of the wrong and corrected Pre-selection brief, a copy of a letter from a military personnel flight commander claiming responsibility for applicant’s erroneous information meeting the board and, a copy of a letter from the Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).

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

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of captain.  He has one nonselection to the grade of major by the CY02B central major selection board.  His last eight OPR’s all reflect “Meets Standards.”

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPE reviewed this application to address the applicant’s request to have his Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 16 May 2002, be replaced with an edited version to include a recommendation for Professional Military Education (PME).  DPPPE recommended denial.  The applicant had previously applied to the ERAB where relief was denied on the basis that the evaluators who signed the report in the rating chain should have corrected this “error” before signing it.  Additionally, the ERAB found that a simple willingness by evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a valid basis for doing so.  DPPPE defers to the finding by the ERAB and states that the time to make changes is before the report becomes a matter of record.  DPPPE indicates the applicant’s OPR is neither unjust nor in error and, IAW DOD Directive 1320.11, paragraph 4.3, “A Special Selection Board shall not…consider any officer who might, by maintaining reasonably careful records, have discovered and taken steps to correct that error or omission on which the original board based its decision against promotion.”  DPPPE notes that there are no comments from the evaluator’s accompanying the appeal.

AFPC/DPPPE’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPAO states that the revised Officer Selection Brief (OSB), dated 3 March 2003, is accurate for duty history, awards, and decorations.  The applicant's current MPF has obtained, reviewed, and verified supporting documentation and has updated the applicant's duty history.  DPAO defers to AFPC/DPPPO for SSB consideration.

AFPC/DPAO’s complete evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit D.

AFPC/DPPPO notes that the applicant’s request for SSB consideration to include corrected duty history from 1997 and earlier, overseas duty history ending 8 September 1998 and the citation for the AFCM from five years ago is untimely and recommends denial due to lack of merit.  The applicant states that he was missing four duty title entries on his OSB but DPPPO has been able to identify only three.  That notwithstanding, they note the applicant displayed due diligence in trying to rectify those errors.  Therefore, DPPPO supports SSB consideration on this issue.  Regarding applicant’s overseas duty history, DPPPO points out that the board was fully aware of his overseas duty history as it was documented on his OPRs.  These are considered minor administrative omissions that would not result in his nonselection for promotion and therefore do not merit SSB consideration.  Regarding the applicant’s decorations contentions, DPPPO states that while the AFCM was, indeed, missing from his OSR, the board was aware of it’s existence as evidenced by it inclusion on his OSB.  Additionally, the accomplishments normally included on the citation were listed in his OPRs.  Therefore DPPPO contends that the absence of the citation from the OSR does not constitute a material error.  In summary, DPPPO recommends partial approval of the appeal for SSB consideration with inclusion of the missing duty titles effective 3 Jun 93, 9 Mar 94, and 14 Dec 94.  DPPPO recommends disapproval of SSB consideration to include duty titles effective 11 Aug 96, 2 Mar 97, and 8 Oct 98 reflecting “Chief of Training,” his overseas history and AFCM citation.

AFPC/DPPPO’s complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded with a respectful request to expedite processing as he would like to meet the 22 September 2003, SSB.  Regarding the replacement of the OPR ending 14 May 03 with one that recommends PME, he wants the Board to consider operations tempo at the time and the fact that the he was not afforded time to perform a complete assessment of his OPR prior to the board.  Regarding the comment that statements from the OPR evaluating chain were conspicuously absent from his appeal, he states that he sent those comments with his package but that they somehow went missing.  He has included copies of those statements as attachments to his rebuttal.  Notwithstanding the fact that the evaluation from DPPPO states that OPB’s and OSB’s should not include duty title information that invalidates previous OPRs, he reiterates his request that the duty title “Chief of Training” be included on his OSB and OBP with effective dates of 11 Aug 96 and 2 Mar 97.  He respectfully requests that his OPB/OSB include the duty title “Chief of Training” with an effective date of 8 Oct 01 as he exceeded the 60 day minimum required to add a duty title to an OPB.  He notes that he held three other significantly different additional duties: “Chief of Mission Plans,” “Chief of Training,” and “Special Assistant to the Commander.”  He notes that these changes were supposed to have been made when he became aware of them while stationed at RAF Lakenheath but were not.  He feels as though his OPB did not reflect his career progression adequately and was told that promotion board members rely heavily on the OSB.  He finishes with a short summary and the comment that his commanders, previous and current, feel he should have been promoted to major.  He is confident that the Board will find him a hard working and reliable officer deserving of promotion.

The applicant’s response, with attachments, is at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

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 pertaining to the applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) ending 16 May 02.  After reviewing the evidence of record, which includes statements from the rating chain, we are not persuaded that the contested report is an inaccurate assessment of applicant’s performance at the time the report was submitted.  In the absence of evidence showing that the rating chain members intended to include PME recommendation at the time they prepared the contested report, we find no basis upon which to recommend approval of this portion of his appeal.

4.  Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of error or injustice regarding the applicant’s request to be considered for promotion by SSB based on errors on his OSB and the omission of the AFCM citation from his record.  We note that the Air Force concurs that the applicant’s record was not up-to-date when considered by the CY02B selection board.  Whether or not these errors caused his nonselection cannot be determined; however, we believe that these errors deprived him of fair and equitable consideration by the board in question.  Therefore, we recommend that his corrected record be considered by SSB.

______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating to APPLICANT, to include the OSB reflecting the additional duty titles of Student Navigator, RF-4 Student Weapons Systems Officer (WSO), and RF-4 WSO from 3 June 1993, 9 March 1994, and 14 December 1996, respectively, and the citation to accompany the AFCM for the period 11 August 1996 through 9 October 1998, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2002B Central Major Selection Board.
______________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 2 September 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36‑2603:

Panel Chair
Member
Member

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

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 03, w/atchs. 
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 14 May 03.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAO, dated Jun 03, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 7 Jul 03.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 18 Jul 03.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 29 Jul 03.

                                   
                                   Panel Chair

 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
WASHINGTON DC

Office Of The Assistant Secretary

AFBCMR BC-2003-00795

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 APPLICANT, to include the OSB reflecting the additional duty titles of Student Navigator, RF-4 Student Weapons Systems Officer (WSO), and RF-4 WSO from 3 June 1993, 9 March 1994, and 14 December 1996, respectively, and the citation to accompany the AFCM for the period 11 August 1996 through 9 October 1998, be considered for promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board for the Calendar Year 2002B Central Major Selection Board.

                                                                            
                                                                            Director
                                                                            Air Force Review Boards Agency