XXXXRECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: 98-03418
INDEX CODE: 131
COUNSEL: NONE
HEARING DESIRED: NO
______
APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:
He be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel below-the-zone (BPZ), to include the corrected Education/Training Report closing 20 June 1997 and the citation for the 1997 Joint Service Achievement Medal (JSAM), by a special selection board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1998B (CY98B) BPZ Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.
______
APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:
The error on his Education/Training Report, AF Form 475, has been corrected. However, his records met the lieutenant colonel promotion board below-the-zone with the flawed training report. The original training report stated in three places that he was being assigned to XXXX, a numbered Air Force, when in fact he was assigned to XXXXX, a unified command. Therefore, his records did not factually represent his duty history or performance.
Applicant’s submission is attached at Exhibit A.
______
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of major.
A similar appeal was submitted under AFI 36-2401. The Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB) partially approved the appeal and granted the correction to the training report. However, they advised the applicant on 26 October 1998 that the changes to the contested report were not significant enough to warrant a review by the special selection board (SSB).
Applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile is as follows:
PERIOD ENDING OVERALL EVALUATION
24 Dec 93 (Captain) Meets Standards
24 Dec 94 Meets Standards
7 Jun 96 (Major) Education/Training Report
* 20 Jun 97 Education/Training Report
20 Jun 98 Meets Standards
20 Jun 99 Meets Standards
* Contested Report
______
AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, states that the duty history portion of the CY98B Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the promotion board appropriately indicates the applicant’s duty location as XXXXX. Therefore, the board had before it the correct information and took this information into consideration in the selection process. AFPC/DPPPA concurs with the ERAB’s decision to not grant promotion reconsideration as they do not believe the correction significant enough. The applicant could have communicated with the promotion board to advise them the training report was in error. However, the applicant elected not to exercise this entitlement. They recommend the application be denied.
A copy of the Air Force evaluation, with attachments, is attached at Exhibit C.
______
APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:
A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 1February 1999 for review and response. Applicant E-mailed the AFBCMR and also requested that he be given SSB consideration to also include the citation for the award of the 1997 Joint Service Achievement Medal (JSAM).
Applicant’s response is attached 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 probable error or injustice. After a thorough review of the evidence of record and applicant’s submission, we are not persuaded that he should receive promotion consideration to the grade of lieutenant colonel by special selection board (SSB), to include a corrected 20 June 1997 Education/Training Report and citation for the 1997 Joint Service Achievement Medal (JSAM), for the Calendar Year 1998 (CY98) below-the-zone Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. His contentions are duly noted; however, we do not find these assertions, in and by themselves, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force. We note that the duty history portion of the CY98 officer selection brief (OSB) correctly indicated the applicant’s duty location as XXXXX, therefore, the information was available for the promotion board’s review. Additionally, while the citation for the JSAM was not in applicant’s officer selection record (OSR) when the promotion board convened, we note it was listed on the CY98 OSB and a discrepancy report was filed in the OSR; therefore, we must presume the promotion board members had the opportunity to review this information. In view of the foregoing we agree with the recommendations of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has failed to sustain his burden that he has suffered either an error or an injustice. Therefore, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.
______
THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:
The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that 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 this application in Executive Session on 26 August 1999, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603.
Panel Chair
Member
Member
The following documentary evidence was considered:
Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 30 Nov 98, w/atchs.
Exhibit B. Applicant's Officer Selection Records.
Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 15 Jan 99, w/atchs.
Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Feb 99.
Exhibit E. Applicant’s E-Mail, dated 4 Mar 99.
Panel Chair
4