RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-01222
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.01
            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Assignment History Section and Academic Education Section  of  the
Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the Calendar Year (CY) 1997C
(21 July 1997) Central Lieutenant Colonel Board be corrected and  that
he be considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for the CY97C Central Lieutenant Colonel
Board.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Five duty titles, one Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC),  and  the
graduation date from his Masters Degree program are incorrect  on  the
contested OSB.

In support of his request, applicant provided a copy of the  contested
OSB and six Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) covering the period  19
December 1988 through 10 April 1994.  (Exhibit A)

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  reflects
applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) as  22
September 1981.  He was integrated into the  Regular  component  on  1
July 1985.  He is currently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of
major, with a date of rank and effective date of 1 January 1994.

A resume of applicant’s OPR profile, as reflected in the PDS, follows:

     PERIOD CLOSING    OVERALL EVALUATION

        25 Jun 89      Meets Standards (MS)
        31 May 90      MS
        24 Jun 91      MS
        24 Jun 92      MS
        10 Apr 93      MS
        10 Apr 94      MS
        14 Mar 95      MS
        24 Jan 96      MS
   *    24 Jan 97      MS
   #    24 Jan 98      MS

* 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.

As of 3 November 1998, the PDS reflects applicant’s Masters Degree  in
Aeronautical Science Technology completed in 1998.

Based on the documents submitted by the applicant, and those contained
in his selection folder, the Directorate of Assignments,  AFPC/DPAISI,
concurred with applicant’s request regarding the contested duty titles
and duty AFSC and updated his duty history to read as follows (Exhibit
C):

      930628 - B FLT COMMANDER/2D BDE ALO
      920602 - CHIEF, F-4/F-117 SIMULATOR DIV
      920219 - CHIEF, F-4/F-117 SIMULATOR DIV
      910504 - CHIEF, F-4/A-10 SIMULATOR DIV
      890901 - CHIEF, WEAPONS AND TACTICS
      880301 - DAFSC K1555R

The OSB reviewed by the CY98B Lt Col Board, which convened  on  1 June
1998, reflected the corrected duty titles and DAFSC.   The  completion
date of applicant’s Masters Degree was reflected as 1998.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application  and
recommended denial of applicant’s request for SSB consideration by the
CY97C central lieutenant colonel board.

DPPPA stated each officer eligible for promotion consideration by  the
CY97C board received  an  officer  preselection  brief  (OPB)  several
months prior to the date the board convened  in  July  1997.   Written
instructions attached to the OPB and given to the officer  before  the
central selection board specifically  instruct  him/her  to  carefully
examine  the  brief  for  completeness  and  accuracy.   It  was   the
applicant’s responsibility to have the erroneous information corrected
prior to the board or, as a  minimum,  to  notify  the  Board  of  the
erroneous duty titles on his OSB by letter prior to the  board  if  he
believed   it    important    to    his    promotion    consideration.
Notwithstanding, the applicant admits he wrote a letter to  the  CY97C
board  president  to  discuss  the  Academic  Education  data   issue.
However, he does not state  he  addressed  the  erroneous  duty  title
issues, nor does he provide documentation to support  his  claim  that
the degree was awarded in 1997.

Although AFPC/DPAISI has corrected the duty titles on the  OSB,  DPPPA
is strongly opposed to the applicant receiving  SSB  consideration  by
the CY97C board.  The applicant did not provide any evidence  he  made
attempts prior to the CY97C board to correct the “erroneous duty title
entries” on his OSB.  DPPPA noted that  most  of  the  contested  duty
titles have been “in-system” for several selection  boards,  including
the board that selected him to the grade of major.  They further noted
a change to the contested 2 Jun 92 duty title.  The 2 Jun 92 entry was
previously a 1 Jun  92  duty  title  entry  which  read,  “Chief,  F-4
Simulattor (sic) Div.”  DPPPA questions what precluded  the  applicant
from appealing these issues the first time he saw them some five years
ago.  He obviously reviewed his records at some  point  prior  to  his
first below-the-zone promotion (BPZ) consideration by the CY94A  board
because a change ensued and the 2 Jun  92  duty  title  changed.   The
applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of  major  with  the
same duty title entries (with the exception of the 28 Jun 93 and 2 Jun
92) present on the CY92C OSB.  He now questions the  five  duty  title
entries after discovering “discrepancies” between several of his  OPRs
and the associated duty title entries on  the  CY97C  OSB.   The  fact
remains, the entries have been on his OSB for several years and he has
consistently neglected to show the  proper  diligence  to  ensure  his
record was correct prior to any of his considerations for promotion by
any of the  above  mentioned  boards.   Therefore,  DPPPA  recommended
denying the applicant’s request for SSB consideration on this issue.

Noting applicant’s contention that he completed his Masters Degree  in
May 1997 not 1998 as indicated on his CY97C OSB, DPPPA stated that  he
wrote a letter to the CY97C board president indicating  completion  of
his Masters Degree in Aeronautical Science in  May  1997.   Therefore,
DPPPA concluded the information was appropriately  factored  into  his
original promotion consideration to the grade of lieutenant colonel by
the CY97C board, and SSB consideration is not warranted.

DPPPA further noted the “erroneous” academic data is still present  in
the Headquarters Air Force (HAF) file.  The instructions  attached  to
the OPB provided to the applicant indicate the proper  way  to  update
academic education data is to  contact  the  Air  Force  Institute  of
Technology (AFIT).  They are the  only  agency  authorized  to  update
academic data.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant stated that he did receive an OPB for his primary lieutenant
colonel board and he went to Randolph AFB  to  personally  review  his
records prior to the board.  He reviewed the information  provided  to
him and concluded it was “accurate enough.”  He did  not  compare  the
exact text of his duty titles on the  OPRs  to  the  summary  document
provided at Randolph AFB or on his  OPB.   He  was  just  looking  for
glaring errors.

With respect to the completion date of  his  Masters  Degree,  he  was
informed that a letter to the promotion board indicting the completion
date of his coursework, signed by him, was all that  he  needed.   The
difference in time between the completion of the  coursework  and  the
date on his diploma represents the administrative processing time  for
the degree application form used by the University.

While two errors were present  for  his  primary  promotion  board  to
major, he had a Definitely Promote recommendation and a  Masters  Plus
in his records, so he was not overly concerned about the  Weapons  and
Tactics duty title.  Additionally, he did not notice the  “K”  prefix,
indicating Instructor qualifications, was missing from his  assignment
history.

Applicant’s complete response 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 timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  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.   In  this  case,  the
applicant acknowledged  that  he  did  in  fact  receive  the  officer
preselection brief and that he  concluded  that  the  information  was
“accurate enough” and that he was just  looking  for  glaring  errors.
After careful review of the evidence provided, it is our opinion  that
the applicant failed  to  exercise  proper  diligence  to  insure  his
records were properly  constituted  prior  to  his  consideration  for
promotion.   Furthermore,  and  more  importantly,  we  have  seen  no
evidence which would lead us to believe that  the  applicant’s  record
was so inaccurate or misleading that the  duly  constituted  selection
board  was  unable  to  make  a  reasonable  decision  concerning  his
promotability in comparison to his peers.  Based on the foregoing,  we
agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force  office  of
primary responsibility (AFPC/DPPPA) and adopt their rationale  as  the
basis for our conclusion that the applicant has not been the victim of
an error or injustice.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence  to  the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought in this application.

___________________________________________________________________

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 16 Apr 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAIS1, dated 11 May 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 22 May 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 98.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 30 Jun 98, w/atchs.




                                   MICHAEL P. HIGGINS
                                   Panel Chair