RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-00117
            R. KENNEY  COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The AF Form 77 (Supplemental Evaluation Sheet), covering the period  3
February 1994 thru 27 November 1994, be removed from his records;  the
Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C
Lt Colonel Board be corrected in the Overseas Duty History, Assignment
History,  and  the  Academic  Education  sections;  and  that  he   be
considered for promotion by Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for  the
CY97C Board, with a corrected OSB and  with  the  Officer  Performance
Report (OPR) closing 15 March 1997 included in his records.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The contested AF Form 77 may have sent a negative signal to the  board
causing his nonselection for promotion by the CY97C Lt Colonel  Board.
During his nonpromotion counseling, an AFPC personnel specialist  told
him that, since there was only an eight-month break in service, the AF
Form 77 was not necessary and did not need to be in his records.  Upon
reinstatement, the AF Form 77 was placed in his records stating  there
was no OPR since “officer was restored to active duty.”  This document
is also in error in that it  shows  the  period  through  27  Nov  94,
although it was signed on 8 November 1994.  His  Permanent  Change  of
Station (PCS) orders state he was not separated from  the  Air  Force,
but was PCS’d to his home of record awaiting orders.  These two papers
are contradictory.

In addition, there were several errors in his records,  which  he  had
asked to be corrected prior to his OSB being  printed.   Specifically,
under the Assignment History Section, the Duty Air Force Special  Code
(DAFSC) for the 1 September 1993 entry reflects “0000,” even though he
did not leave the squadron until 4 March 1994; he had  asked  that  LA
Tech University for his BS and the University of South Dakota for  his
MS be identified in the Academic Education section; his Overseas  Duty
History did not reflect his time served at Kadena AB, Japan (12 Apr 88
- 27 Sep 91), or Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia (1 Oct 96 - 15  Mar  97);  and
the OPR closing 15 March  1997  had  been  lost  in  transit  and  was
actually sent to another base.

In support of his request, applicant provided his personal  statement;
copies of the contested AF Form 77 and the OSB reviewed by  the  CY97C
Lt Col Board;  documentation  associated  with  his  reinstatement  on
active duty; and statements submitted in his behalf from his wing  and
group commanders.  (Exhibit A)

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 19 November 1980, applicant was  appointed  as  second  lieutenant,
Reserve of the Air Force.  He  was  voluntarily  ordered  to  extended
active duty on 12 May  1981,  and  was  integrated  into  the  Regular
component on 4 November 1987.

He was considered and nonselected for promotion to the grade of  major
by the CY92C Selection Board which convened on 7 December 1992.

On 4 March 1994, he resigned his Regular Air Force commission and  was
honorably discharged under the provisions of AFR  36-12  (Resignation:
Completion of Required  Service).   Effective  5 March  1994,  he  was
appointed as a Reserve of the Air Force in the grade  of  captain  and
assigned to Headquarters, Air Reserve Personnel  Center,  Nonobligated
Nonparticipating Ready Personnel Section (NNRPS).

On 21 March 1994, as a result of administrative relief provided by the
Air Force Military Personnel  Center,  applicant  was  considered  for
retroactive promotion to the grade of major by Special Selection Board
(SSB) for the CY92C Selection Board.  He was selected for  retroactive
promotion to the grade of major, with a date  of  rank  and  effective
date of 1 November 1993.

On 13 September 1994, the AFBCMR favorably considered his requests for
reinstatement  on  active  duty  and  consideration  for  Intermediate
Service School by a  Special  Selection  Board  (see  copy  of  AFBCMR
Memorandum for the Chief of Staff appended at Exhibit A).

On 7 October 1997 and 19 March 1998, the AFBCMR considered and  denied
an application submitted by  applicant  requesting  reimbursement  for
mileage and per diem to his  Unit  Training  Assembly  (UTA)  weekends
(during the period 4 March - 3  October  1994)  as  though  they  were
temporary duties (TDYs).  (See Record of Proceedings at Exhibit C.)

A resume of applicant’s  OERs/OPRs  subsequent  to  his  promotion  to
captain follows:

      PERIOD CLOSING   OVERALL EVALUATION

         4 Oct 85      1-1-1
        21 Mar 86      Education/Training Report (TR)
        19 Jan 87      1-1-1
        14 Oct 87      1-1-1
        18 Dec 87      TR
        18 Dec 88      Meets Standards (MS)
        18 Dec 89      MS
        18 Dec 90      MS
        12 Apr 92      MS
        12 Apr 93      MS
         2 Feb 94      MS
   *  AF Fm 77 - “No report available for period (3  Feb  94)  through
(27 Nov 94).  Officer restored to active  duty  by  direction  of  the
Secretary of the Air Force under AFI 36-2603.”
        27 Nov 95      MS
        30 Sep 96      MS
   #    15 Mar 97      MS
   **   15 Aug 97      MS
        16 Feb 98      MS

* Contested AF Form 77.

# Top report in file when considered and nonselected for promotion  by
the CY97C Lt Col Board which convened on 21 July 1997.

** Top report in file when considered and nonselected for promotion by
the CY98B Lt Col Board which convened on 1 June 1998.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Directorate of Assignments, AFPC/DPAIS1,  advised  that  based  on
applicant’s OPRs, the  DAFSC  effective  1  September  1993  has  been
corrected to read “21A3” rather than “0000.”  (Exhibit D)

AFPC/DPAIP1 reviewed applicant’s records and  confirmed  his  tour  to
Kadena and TDY to Al-Kharj,  Saudi  Arabia,  and  have  corrected  his
Overseas Duty History to show these tours.  (Exhibit D)

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application  and
recommended denial, stating SSB consideration is not warranted.  Their
comments, in part, follow.

Applicant contends that he was told by an  individual  at  AFPC,  that
because his break in service was only eight months, the  AF  Form  77,
dated 9 Nov 94, should not have been filed in his OSR.  DPPPA did  not
agree.  All unrated periods between  officer  evaluation  reports  are
documented on AF  Forms  77  (AFI  36-2608).   The  applicant  further
asserts the AF Form 77 is erroneous because it was signed on 8 Nov 94,
yet he was not brought back to active  duty  until  27  Nov  94.   The
AFBCMR’s directive, dated 13 Sep  94,  instructed  each  addressee  to
correct the applicant’s pertinent military records to show he was  not
discharged from  all  appointments  on  4  Mar  94,  but  was  ordered
permanent change of station (PCS) to his home of  record  or  home  of
selection, whichever was applicable, pending further orders.  Then, on
3 Nov 94, the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) issued special  orders,
officially recalling the applicant to active duty,  effective  30  Nov
94, with three days travel time authorized from his current  residence
to his next duty station.  Consequently, all of his Air Force  records
were corrected to read “27 Nov 94” as that was three days prior to the
effective date of applicant’s recall and he was authorized three  days
travel.  They note the correction was made by HQ AFMPC/DPMABR3 [now HQ
AFPC/DPPBR3] instead of HQ AFPC/DPPPA on 8 Nov 94.  It is not  unusual
for HQ AFPC/DPPBR3 to correct an officer’s selection record  as  they,
too, are fully authorized to amend or correct  records  in  accordance
with official Air Force policy directives.  It is not uncommon for  an
action officer to comply with a directive from the SAF on the date  it
is received by the action office.  It would be impractical and a  poor
business practice to wait until the last day of a suspense to complete
an action, especially one that is directly  related  to  an  officer’s
selection record.  DPPPA, therefore,  regards  the  applicant’s  claim
concerning the  date  the  contested  AF  Form  77  was  completed  as
“administrivia” and immaterial to his nonselection.

DPPPA  concluded  that  the  applicant  did  not  exercise  reasonable
diligence to ensure his records were  accurate  with  respect  to  his
academic data, nor did he  take  timely  corrective  action  prior  to
meeting the CY97C central promotion board.

Although  both  AFPC/DPAIS1  and  DPAIP1  have  corrected  applicant’s
assignment history DAFSC and overseas  duty  history,  DPPPA  did  not
believe the applicant showed proper diligence to ensure  his  OSB  was
accurate prior to the CY97C board, especially since the same  “errors”
were present on the  OSB  used  by  the  CY96C  board.   Each  officer
eligible for promotion receives an officer  preselection  brief  (OPB)
several months prior to the date a promotion  board  convenes.   Since
the entries on the OPBs would have been  identical  to  those  on  the
OSBs, DPPPA contends the applicant was aware of the error and omission
long before he was considered for promotion by either the CY96C or the
CY97C selection boards.  They further  noted  the  applicant  did  not
provide any evidentiary documentation to substantiate his  claim  that
he had attempted to correct those discrepancies prior  to  the  board.
What precluded the applicant from ensuring the entry was  changed,  or
the overseas duty history added prior to  both  the  CY96C  and  CY97C
boards?  In neither instance did the applicant write  letters  to  the
board president.  DPPPA therefore concluded the applicant  was  remiss
in his responsibility to ensure his record was accurate  when  it  met
the original CY97C board.

With respect to the OPR closing 15 March 1997, DPPPA  has  ascertained
the report was filed in the applicant’s officer selection record on 29
May 1997; therefore, it was considered by the CY97C selection board.

While it may be argued that the contested discrepancies were a  factor
in the applicant’s nonselection, there is no clear evidence that  they
negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.   The  selection  board
had his entire officer selection  record  that  clearly  outlined  his
accomplishments since the date he came  on  active  duty.   Therefore,
they knew he served in the maintenance career field until  4  Mar  94;
they knew he had served overseas; and were aware he had  two  academic
degrees.  DPPPA was not convinced the contested discrepancies were the
sole cause of the applicant’s nonselection.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant stated that prior to  the  CY97C  board,  he  asked  several
senior officers, as well as personnel specialists at his CBPO, whether
he should send a letter to the board president or let the AF  Form  77
ride on its own merit.  Everyone told him basically the same  thing  -
the AF Form 77 might be glossed over by the board, and that by writing
the board president he could be highlighting a not so  glowing  aspect
of his career.  After his nonselection, these same  individuals  said,
in their opinion, the  Form  77  was  a  contributing  factor  to  his
nonselection.

He further contends he never stated his degrees were not  listed.   He
stated the school locations were not listed.  He provided a  personnel
brief, dated 5 Jul 90, where everything at that time was  correct,  to
include his degrees and school locations.  The overseas data  was  not
completed since he was still stationed in Japan.  He also  provided  a
personnel SURF, dated Dec 93, reflecting the correct information.   He
further stated he knew he would not  receive  a  “Definitely  Promote”
after returning to active duty for a one year below the zone board and
had no chance at all of being selected for  promotion.   He  does  not
remember completing everything on the OSB for the  CY96C  board.   The
OPB for the CY97C board was sent to him in the Apr 97 time frame.   He
did request that the erroneous information be corrected for the  CY97C
board.  However, he is unable  to  find  his  copy  of  the  requested
corrections.

When he returned from a six-month TDY, he found administrative  errors
in his records, which supposedly had been accomplished  while  he  was
deployed.  He did call AFIT after he found out the information was not
on his OSB; however, it was after the board  results  were  announced.
He did not write the board and explain to them  that  the  information
was absent because he expected it to be corrected  when  he  sent  the
corrected OSB in to the Personnel Center.

Applicant reiterated his contention that  the  contested  AF  Form  77
could have had a negative impact on his promotion consideration.

Applicant’s complete response 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 probable error or injustice.

      a.  By regulation, an AF Form 77 is placed  in  an  individual’s
record to document all unrated periods.  In this case,  the  contested
AF Form 77 accurately reflects the reason and the inclusive period  in
which the applicant was not rated due to his  break  in  service.   We
found no evidence that the contested form was prepared contrary to the
governing  regulation  or  that  it  was  improperly  filed   in   the
applicant’s records.

      b.  Applicant further contends that there  were  errors  on  his
officer selection brief (OSB) with regard to his  assignment  history,
academic information, and overseas duty history.  In this  regard,  we
note that several months prior to the  convening  dates  of  promotion
selection boards, each officer eligible for promotion consideration is
provided a preselection brief containing  information  which  will  be
reviewed by the respective  selection  board.   It  is  the  officer’s
responsibility to review the information for accuracy  and  to  insure
that any necessary corrective  actions  are  taken  before  the  board
convenes.  Other than applicant’s own assertions,  we  found  that  no
evidence has been presented showing that he attempted to  correct  the
cited discrepancies on the OSB before the  selection  board  convened.
We also note that the cited inaccuracies on the OSB for the  CY97C  Lt
Colonel Board were also on the OSB considered by an earlier  selection
board.  Therefore, in our opinion, we  believe  there  was  sufficient
time for the applicant to insure that his records were corrected prior
to being considered for promotion by the CY97C Lt Colonel Board.

      c.  Furthermore, and more importantly, we have seen no  evidence
which would lead us to believe that the contested AF Form 77  and  the
cited inaccuracies on the OSB caused the applicant’s record to  be  so
inaccurate or misleading that the  members  of  the  duly  constituted
selection board were precluded from rendering  a  reasonable  decision
concerning his promotability in comparison to his peers.  In  view  of
the foregoing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief  sought  in  this
application.

4.  AFPC/DPPPA has confirmed that the applicant’s OPR closing 15 March
1997 was filed in  his  officer  selection  record  on  29  May  1997.
Therefore, it was reviewed by the CY97C Lt  Colonel  Board.   We  find
that no evidence has been presented refuting their determination.
___________________________________________________________________

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 1 December 1998, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Michael P. Higgins, Panel Chair
      Mr. William E. Edwards, Member
      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 9 Jan 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Record of Proceedings, AFBCMR 95-03741.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPAIS1, dated 13 Feb 98; Staff Summary
                Sheet, dtd 17 Feb 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 2 Mar 98.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 Mar 98.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 13 Apr 98, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL P. HIGGINS
                                   Panel Chair