RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-00973 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: His Assignment History on his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) be corrected to show a duty title of “Chief, Wing Plans & Programs/F-16 Instructor Pilot (IP),” and his organizational level as “Wing” rather than “Squadron” and that his corrected record receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the Calendar Year 2009B (CY09B) Lieutenant Colonel Central Selection Board (CSB). ________________________________________________________________ THE APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: When looking at his career snapshot in the OSB, board members may have missed emphasis on his progression to the wing level or garnered the wrong impression from inconsistencies. He believes either of these perceptions could have adversely biased review of information in his record. In conjunction with seven months as chief of a wing agency not being documented due to timing of the latest officer performance report (OPR), the error in his assignment history may have contributed to an inaccurate portrayal of his recent career for board assessment. In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a personal statement and a copy of his OSB, prepared 4 Jun 09. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. ________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant, a major was serving as the Chief, Wing Plans and Programs F-16IP, with a date of rank (DOR) and an effective date of promotion to the grade of major of 1 Aug 05. The applicant’s OPR profile of the last ten reports follows: PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION 07 Apr 01 Meet Standards (MS) 07 Apr 02 MS 07 Apr 03 MS 07 Apr 04 MS 28 Aug 05 MS 26 Sep 06 MS 26 Sep 07 MS 02 Apr 08 Training Report (TR) #05 Nov 08 MS 05 Nov 09 MS # Top report at the time he was considered and nonselected for promotion by the CY09B Lieutenant Colonel CSB. AFPC/DPAOC will administratively correct the applicant’s OSB to reflect in Assignment History, Duty Status Code, Organization, as “Fighter – WG – Luke.” ________________________________________________________________ THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOO recommends denial. They note, the applicant did not exercise due diligence prior to the convening of the board. Additionally, updating the OSB to include the corrected organization data would not introduce any new information that was not already considered by the CY09B CSB. Eligible officers meeting the CY09B CSB were provided with an Officer Preselection Brief (OPB) several months prior to the CSB. The OPB mirrors the data that will appear on the OSB at the central board. The written instructions attached to the OPB specifically instruct the officer to carefully examine the brief for completeness and accuracy. For updates to the assignment history, the officer must contact the Air Force Contact Center with source documentation before any updates to the assignment history can take place. The applicant has not provided any evidence that he attempted to correct the error prior to the P0509B CSB. Although, his P0509B OSB did not reflect the correct organization for duty title entry effective 1 Jun 08, his OPR closing 5 Nov 08 contained the correct information, which the board members saw and took into consideration in evaluating his record. As such, the corrected duty history data does not introduce any new information that was not already considered by the board members. The Military Personnel Data System (MILPDS) reflects the correct information. DPSOO is not convinced the contested error in the applicant’s OSB cause his nonselection for promotion since central boards evaluate the selection record to include the promotion recommendation form, OPRs, officer effectiveness reports (OERs), TRs, letters of evaluation, decorations, and data on the OSB. The board members assess the whole person factor such as job performance, professional qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership and academic and professional military education (PME) when rendering their decision The AFPC/DPSOO complete evaluation is at Exhibit C. ________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF THE AIR FORCE EVALUATION: The error of discussion is readily apparent and seems simplistic for identification and correction. As a result, as noted, this oversight has generated concern regarding due diligence, which is also his concern. He did find and correct errors in the duty titles and worked to update his academic record. A significant portion of his duty during that period was dedicated to instructing at the squadron level, possibly making the error less apparent. Whatever the cause, the oversight was a mistake rather than one of negligence or complacency. The error became apparent in a subsequent OPB which correlated a squadron duty title with “WG” organization. The different label uniquely stood out from the rest, highlighted errors in the two most recent duty history lines, and would have generated a different perspective on the OPB of discussion if correctly annotated the first time. His accomplishments, awards and decorations, and stratifications are reflective of a unique “depth and breadth of experience” for his career field. His job performance and leadership, other noteworthy points in the review is annotated well in his records. However, his concern going into the board, relates to the point of “professional qualities” or related perceptions, areas that are more difficult to qualify or quantify. He is appealing to the acknowledgment that it is viable for the smallest detail to negate an otherwise competitive record or become a deciding factor. His concern remains that up-front emphasis on wing-level experience was potentially missed in the first impression and conversely the presentation of an error may have tainted his career successes. The applicant’s complete response, with attachments, is at Exhibit E. ________________________________________________________________ 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. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, in our view, the Air Force office of primary responsibility has conducted a thorough review of the evidence of record and has adequately addressed the issues presented by the applicant. Therefore, we adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision the applicant has failed to sustain his burden of having suffered either an error or injustice. While we note the applicant’s contentions that his oversight in getting his OSB corrected prior to the promotion board convening was a mistake rather than negligence, unfortunately, he failed to exercise due diligence in insuring the accuracy of his records as expected of him and others similarly situated. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. ________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 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 AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2010-00973 in Executive Session on 2 November 2010, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 1 Mar 10, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPSOO, dated 27 Apr 10. Exhibit D. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 28 May 10. Exhibit E. Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jun 10.