RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-02000
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given Special Selection Board consideration for promotion to the
grade of major by the  CY98B  Central  Major  Selection  Board,  which
convened on 6 Apr 98, with inclusion of  the  Air  Force  Commendation
Medal (AFCM), Fourth Oak Leaf Cluster (4OLC), citation in his  Officer
Selection Record (OSR).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The AFCM (4OLC) citation was not in his OSR when he was considered for
promotion to the grade of major by the CY96B Major Board.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a personal  statement
and copies of the special order and AFCM (4OLC) citation (Exhibit A).

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain, having been promoted to that grade on 9 Aug 91.

Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1990 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       4 Sep 90  Meets Standards
      4 Sep 91   Meets Standards
       4 Sep 92  Meets Standards
      19 May 93  Meets Standards
      13 Jan 94  Meets Standards
      30 Nov 94  Meets Standards
       2 Nov 95  Meets Standards
      29 Mar 96  Meets Standards
  #  29 Mar 97   Meets Standards
      29 Mar 98  Meets Standards

# Top Report - CY98B (6 Apr 98) Major Board.

By Special Order, dated 25 Apr 96, the applicant was awarded the  AFCM
(4OLC) for meritorious service during the period 7 Jan 95 to 6 Apr 96.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application  and
recommended denial.  DPPPA noted that the order was prepared on 25 Apr
96.  By regulation, the citation was required to be filed in  his  OSR
by 24 Jun 96.  However, according to DPPPA, the purpose of including a
citation in the OSR is  to  make  them  aware  of  the  level  of  the
decoration.  In this regard, they are guided  by  AFI  36-2608,  Table
A2.1,  Item  329.   Specifically  cited  is   that   orders   granting
decorations may be filed and maintained when a like  citation  is  not
available.  This speaks to the “knowledge” that a decoration was given
as opposed to the “contents” contained in the citation.   Accordingly,
evidence of a decoration within  the  OSR  speaks  to  the  decoration
itself, not what the citation may or may not reveal.

DPPPA indicated that even though the AFCM (4OLC) citation was  not  on
file for review by the CY98B Major Board, it was present  on  the  OSB
and, therefore, was in evidence before the board.  They also  found  a
board  discrepancy  report  memorandum,  dated  26 Mar 98,   from   HQ
AFPC/DPPBR1 to the applicant’s servicing MPF requesting a copy of  the
AFCM (4OLC), for inclusion in the applicant’s OSR.  Consequently,  the
board members, by these two documents,  were  knowledgeable  that  the
decoration was given which is the ultimate purpose of  including  them
in the promotion selection process.   Since  the  board  members  were
aware of  the  decoration  and  it  was  factored  into  the  original
promotion evaluation, DPPPA stated that they would be opposed  to  the
applicant  receiving  SSB  consideration.   According  to  DPPPA,  the
decoration citation was filed in the applicant’s OSR on 7 Aug 98.

A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant  indicated  that  during  a  counseling  session  after  his
nonselection, he was advised  that  the  absence  of  the  orders  and
citation for award of the AFCM (4OLC) could appear to indicate that it
might not have been awarded.  The OSB did indicate the  correct  award
date.  However, the lack of orders and a copy of the citation may have
given an impression of inaccuracy.

Applicant stated that the 66th Personnel Flight  at  Hanscom  AFB  was
tasked by AFPC to send the orders/citation to them prior to the  board
cut off date.  In his view,  the  discrepancy  report  in  any  folder
viewed for promotion is a serious hindrance to a  possible  promotion.
The negligence in not sending the requested documents clearly  created
a less than positive impression.

Applicant’s complete response 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 probable error or injustice.  We took notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging the  merits  of  the  case;
however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force
office of primary responsibility (OPR) and adopt  their  rationale  as
the basis for our conclusion that  the  applicant  has  not  been  the
victim of an error or injustice.  We note that  the  AFCM  (4OLC)  was
properly reflected on the applicant’s OSB.  Therefore, it appears  the
selection board was aware of the decoration.  In view of this, and  in
the absence of sufficient evidence to support a determination that the
applicant’s  record  before  the  original  selection  board  was   so
inaccurate  or  misleading  that  the  board  was  unable  to  make  a
reasonable decision concerning his promotability  in  relationship  to
his peers, 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 10 Dec 98, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Henry C. Saunders, Panel Chair
      Ms. Ann L. Heidig, Member
      Ms. Sophie A. Clark, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 Jul 98, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 12 Aug 98.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 31 Aug 98.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 16 Sep 98.




                                   HENRY C. SAUNDERS
                                   Panel Chair