RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01255
		INDEX NUMBER:  100.05; 131.01

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED: NO

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) closing 24 Mar 1995 and 14 Jan 1996, be changed to reflect the instructor prefix “K” on his Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) of 12B3B; the DAFSCs of 12B3B in the Assignment History section of his Officer Selection Briefs (OSBs) for the Calendar Years 1996 (CY96), CY98, and CY99 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards be changed to K12B3B; and that he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Boards (SSBs) for the CY96 (8 Jul 96), CY98 (1 Jun 98), and CY99 (19 Apr 99) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards.  

If the Board grants his appeal, the applicant requests that his letters to the presidents of the CY98 and CY99 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards be removed from his Officer Selection Record (OSR).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not aware until his counseling in Oct 98, after he was not selected for promotion, that the “K” prefix was missing from his DAFSC.  The omission of the instructor prefix from his DAFSC in the Assignment History of his OSB and from the OPRs indicates a flawed career progression and negative performance, which could significantly impact on his promotion.  The fact that he was a B-1 instructor with increased responsibilities while assigned to Det. 4 removes the perceived negative performance indicator and unsuccessful career progression.

He performed instructor flights to maintain his proficiency.  He kept his instructor status after his permanent change of assignment (PCA) from the B-1 Formal Training Unit (FTU) Squadron to Detachment X, XXth Training Systems Squadron (TSS).  He maintained full instructor qualification to retain B-1 expertise to validate his duties.  He flew 74.5 hours in the B-1 as an instructor during this period.

His request to correct the DAFSC on his OPRs and OSB was denied by the Evaluation Reports Appeals Board.

While investigating the reason the instructor prefix was omitted from his DAFSC, he learned from his rater that a co-worker with the same DAFSC problem appealed to the AFBCMR and his appeal was granted.

During his investigation, he also learned that the authorized position he held while assigned to Det. 4 was finally changed to include the instructor position.  According to the rater, it had taken this long to correct the authorized manpower position to an instructor position.
 
In support of his appeal, the applicant provided the OSBs reviewed by the CY96, CY98, and CY99 Lieutenant Colonel Boards; the contested reports; flight records; his letters to the board presidents for the CY98 and CY99 boards; supporting statements from the rater; and other documents associated with the issues under review (Exhibit A).

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System (PDS) indicates that Applicant was appointed a second lieutenant, Reserve of the Air Force, on 17 Oct 82.  He was voluntarily ordered to extended active duty on the same date.  He is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major, having been promoted to that grade, effective 1 Sep 94.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile for the last 10 reporting periods follows:

	PERIOD ENDING	EVALUATION

	30 Aug 91	Meets Standards
	20 Apr 92	Meets Standards
	20 Apr 93	Meets Standards
	24 Mar 94	Meets Standards
	24 Mar 95	Meets Standards
   *	14 Jan 96	Meets Standards
	14 Jan 97	Meets Standards
	12 Dec 97	Training Report
  **	14 Jan 98	Meets Standards
 ***	14 Jan 99	Meets Standards

*Top report CY96 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 8 Jul 96.
**Top report CY98 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 1 Jun 98.
***Top report CY99 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 19 Apr 99.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY96 (below the promotion zone (BPZ)), CY98 (in the promotion zone (IPZ)), and CY99 (above the promotion zone (APZ)) Selection Boards.

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Assignment Information Systems Branch, AFPC/DPAPS, reviewed this application and stated that the applicant’s OPRs reflect the same DAFSC as the duty history section in the PDS and is correct based on manpower authorizations at the time.  If the AFBCMR grants relief, the OPRs should be corrected to reflect the instructor prefix K12B3B, vice 12B3B, and the assignment history section of the PDS should be corrected to reflect the same.  The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP, reviewed this application and recommended that it be time-barred.  The alleged errors have been discoverable since publication of the reports and the DAFSC entries, more than 3 and 5 years respectively.  

The application may also be dismissed under the doctrine of laches, which denies relief to one who has unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in asserting a claim.  The applicant has inexcusably delayed his appeal, providing no explanation.  His unreasonable delay has greatly complicated the Air Force’s ability to determine the merits of his position. 

DPPP noted that the ERAB denied the applicant’s appeal and accepted their assessment of the application.  The applicant’s appeal to the ERAB challenging the verbiage in his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the CY98 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board was approved and he was granted promotion reconsideration by an SSB that convened on 24 May 99.  He was not selected.  The applicant has two nonselections for promotion to lieutenant colonel.  He is again eligible for APZ consideration by the CY99 (30 Nov 99) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

The applicant contends that his DAFSC on the contested reports should read “K12B3B.”  The PDS cannot reflect this DAFSC until the reports have been corrected.  The applicant’s rater on the reports indicates the applicant’s primary duties were instructor duties.  However, the unit manning document (UMD) did not have the applicant’s position identified with the “K” prefix when he was assigned.  Even though an authorization change request was subsequently approved, the request would not be retroactive and does not change the fact that the applicant was not occupying an instructor billet.  As such, the OPRs were accurately prepared with the appropriate DAFSC.  DPPP noted that the applicant’s instructor duties were discussed in the contested reports and in his letters to the board presidents.  Therefore, the board members were aware he was an instructor pilot.

Regarding removal of the applicant’s letters to the presidents of the CY98 and CY99 boards, DPPP has no objection to their removal if the appeal is granted.

The applicant is also requesting reconsideration for promotion by his first BPZ board.  The Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) is sent to each eligible officer several months prior to a selection board.  The OPB contains data that will appear on the OSB for the central board.  If errors are found on the OPB, corrective action must be taken prior to the selection board.  The instructions that accompany the OPB 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.”  If the applicant had challenged the DAFSC when he received his first BPZ preselection brief in 1996, DPPP believes it would have been possible to request a change to the UMD prior to his in or above the promotion zone boards.

A complete copy of DPPP’s evaluation is at Exhibit D.

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant challenged DPPP’s recommendation to time-bar the application on the basis that there has been precedence in changing records that have been a matter of record for more than 3 years.  The ERAB corrected his 1983 training report by adding that he was a Distinguished Graduate (DG) from the Defense Language Institute even though the report was a matter of record for more than 16 years.  He states he knew there was a problem with the training report since his 2-year BPZ consideration to lieutenant colonel.  Still, the ERAB changed the contested report.  With this change, he had his in the promotion zone PRF changed to include the DG achievement and he is appealing his 2-year below the zone PRF to also include the achievement.

The applicant states he was not an instructor pilot, as the DPPP evaluation suggests.  He was a B-1 Instructor Offensive Systems Officer.  He was told by a counselor that even though the OPRs state he is an instructor, promotion board members would not have an opportunity to read the affected OPRs because of the many records they have to consider.  The counselor further stated if the corrected instructor prefix were in the duty history of the OSB, which is seen by the board members, it would show no flawed progression or negative performance.

Regarding writing a letter to the board, he received conflicting guidance from senior officers as to how the board might view such communications.

The applicant’s complete response with attachments is at Exhibit F.

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

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

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.  The applicant’s OPRs closing 24 Mar 1995 and 14 Jan 1996, appear to be incorrect with respect to the “K” prefix which indicates instructor duties.  It is apparent in Section III, Job Description, Item 2, Key Duties, Tasks, and Responsibilities, that the applicant was the Lead Instructor Offensive Systems Officer during the periods covered by the reports.  In this regard, the documentation and supporting statements provided by the applicant corroborate his contention that there was an inordinate delay in the processing of the Authorization Change Request (ACR) required to correct the Unit Manning Document (UMD) to include the K12B3B instructor position.  We note that the ACR has subsequently been approved and this position is now included on the UMD.  In addition, the rater states that the applicant’s primary duties were instructor duties.  In view of the above, the Board believes that the applicant’s records should be corrected to the extent 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:

	a.	The AF Forms 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Reports, rendered for the periods 25 March 1994 through 24 March 1995 and 25 March 1995 through 14 January 1996, be amended under Section 4, DAFSC, to read “K12B3B” rather than “12B3B.”

	b.	A “K” prefix be added to his Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) for the 28 March 1994, 14 October 1994, 1 October 1995 and 14 October 1995 entries in his Assignment History sections of the Air Force Officer Selection Briefs for Selection Board P0596C, Sequence Number 103906, prepared 18 July 1996; and Selection Board P0598B, Sequence Number 002872, prepared 19 May 1998.

	c.	A “K” prefix be added to his Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) for the 28 March 1994 and 14 October 1994 entries in his Assignment History section of the Air Force Officer Selection Brief for Selection Board P0599A, Sequence Number 003066, prepared 15 April 1999, and to any subsequent Officer Selection Brief.

	d.	The applicant’s letters to the presidents of the CY98B, CY99A and CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards be removed from his Officer Selection Record.

It is further recommended that the applicant’s corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the CY96C Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent boards in which the corrections were not a matter of record.

The following members of the Board considered this application in Executive Session on 6 January 2000, 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 7 May 99, w/atchs.
	Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
	Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPS, dated 11 Jun 99.
	Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 9 Aug 99, w/atch.
	Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 Aug 99.
	Exhibit F.  Letters, Applicant, dated 14 and 16 Sep 99, w/atchs.

		   

AFBCMR 99-01255

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, be corrected to show that:

		a.	The AF Forms 707A, Field Grade Officer Performance Reports, rendered for the periods 25 March 1994 through 24 March 1995 and 25 March 1995 through 14 January 1996, be amended under Section 4, DAFSC, to read “K12B3B” rather than “12B3B.”

		b.	A “K” prefix be added to his Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) for the 28 March 1994, 14 October 1994, 1 October 1995 and 14 October 1995 entries in his Assignment History sections of the Air Force Officer Selection Briefs for Selection Board P0596C, Sequence Number 103906, prepared 18 July 1996; and Selection Board P0598B, Sequence Number 002872, prepared 19 May 1998.

		c.	A “K” prefix be added to his Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC) for the 28 March 1994 and 14 October 1994 entries in his Assignment History section of the Air Force Officer Selection Brief for Selection Board P0599A, Sequence Number 003066, prepared 15 April 1999, and to any subsequent Officer Selection Brief.

		d.	The applicant’s letters to the presidents of the CY98B, CY99A and CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Boards be removed from his Officer Selection Record.

	It is further directed that the applicant’s corrected record be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board for the CY96C Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board and any subsequent boards in which the corrections were not a matter of record.