RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03276
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration  for  promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel for the Calendar  Year  (CY)  1998B
Lieutenant Colonel Board with inclusion  of  his  Officer  Performance
Report (OPR) rendered for the period 30 June  1997  through  30  April
1998, and the Aerial Achievement Medals (AAMs), Basic,  1st  Oak  Leaf
Cluster (1OLC), and 2nd Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

First, the Officer Selection Brief (OSB) did not show his three Aerial
Achievement  Medals  he  earned  for  missions  supporting  real-world
operations between 6 December 1995 and 4 August 1997 while assigned to
NATO.  Secondly, the OPR closing 30 April 1998, that was  intended  to
be in his records for the board members to review,  was  not  included
due to administrative oversights in the personnel  system.   This  OPR
documented significant achievements in his career and, along with  the
three Aerial Achievement Medals, could have been a deciding factor  on
his selection to lieutenant colonel by the CY98B board.

In  support  of  the  appeal,  applicant  submits  the  three   Aerial
Achievement  Medal  citations  and  orders,  the  contested  OPR,  and
statements from the rating chain stating that the OPR became a  matter
of record when it arrived at Spangdahlem AB, GE on 20 May 1998.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on extended active duty in the grade of
major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY98B board  which  convened  on  1  June
1998.

OPR profile since 1991, follows:

       PERIOD ENDING            EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

         20 Oct 91     Meets Standards (MS)
         26 Nov 92           MS
         14 Jul 93           MS
         14 Jul 94           MS
         29 Jun 95           MS
         29 Jun 96           MS
         29 Jun 97           MS
         30 Apr 98           MS

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,   AFPC/DPPPA,   reviewed   the
application and states that the definition  of  matter  of  record  is
explained in  AFI  36-2402,  Attachment  1,  which  states,  “When  an
evaluation report is filed in the Officer  HQ  USAF  Selection  Record
Group (OSR).  Copies of reports filed in the unit (UPRG)  and  command
record group (OCSRG) are work copies until the report becomes a matter
of record.”  The applicant’s OPR was filed in his OSR on 22 June 1998,
well within  the  guidelines  prescribed  in  AFI  36-2402,  paragraph
3.6.4.2, which states OPRs are due for file  no  later  than  60  days
after closeout.  Given the fact that the OPR was being  sent  from  an
overseas geographically separated unit (GSU), it appears the  military
personnel flight that processed the report forwarded the report in  an
expeditious manner.  They state the letters from the evaluators do not
convince them that there were undue administrative oversights, nor are
they convinced they made extraordinary efforts prior to the  board  to
ensure the OPR was filed in his OSR prior to the board.   Furthermore,
they do not support promotion reconsideration on this issue as the OPR
was not required to be a matter of record until 30 June 1998.

In reference to the applicant stating that  his  three  AAM  citations
should have been filed in his OSR prior to the board, they state  that
the officer preselection brief (OPB) is sent to each eligible  officer
several months prior to a selection board.  The OPB contains data that
will appear on the OSB at the  central  board.   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.  If any errors are found,  he/she
must take corrective action prior to the selection  board,  not  after
it.  The  instructions  specifically  state,  “Officers  will  not  be
considered by a Special Selection Board if, in  exercising  reasonable
diligence, the officer should have discovered the error or omission in
his/her records and could have taken timely corrective action”.

In support of this portion  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provides
copies of the special orders and  decoration  citations.   Upon  their
review of the applicant’s OSR, they noted that none of  the  citations
had been filed.  However, they have now ensured a copy  of  all  three
citations are now in his record.

They note the special order for the basic and  1OLC  is  dated      31
October 1996.  They point out that this  decoration  was  awarded  too
late  for  the  applicant’s  first  below-the-promotion   zone   (BPZ)
consideration by the CY96C lieutenant colonel board, which  met  on  8
July 1996.  However, it was awarded in more  than  ample  time  to  be
considered by the applicant’s second BPZ consideration  by  the  CY97C
lieutenant colonel board, which met on  21  July  1997.   The  special
order for the 2OLC is dated 25  August  1997,  after  the  applicant’s
second  BPZ  consideration  by  the  CY97C  board,  but   before   the
applicant’s in-the-promotion zone (IPZ)  consideration  by  the  CY98B
board.  They ask why, at the very least, the applicant didn’t question
why his first two AAMs were not on file when he was considered by  the
CY97C board (second BPZ consideration).  He received an OPB  prior  to
the CY97C board as well, but yet made  no  attempt  to  have  his  AAM
updated in the personnel data system or the citation filed in his OSR.
 Instead, he waited until his first nonselection by the CY98B board to
be motivated into taking action.  They state, as  such,  they  do  not
support promotion reconsideration on this issue.

They  also  point  out  that  each  officer  eligible  for   promotion
consideration is advised of the entitlement to  communicate  with  the
board president.  The applicant could have used this means  to  inform
the board president of his previous year’s achievements and his  three
AAMs.  However, they  have  verified  the  applicant  elected  not  to
exercise this entitlement.  Therefore, based on the evidence provided,
they recommend denial of applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and states that as a staff
officer at HQ ACC/DPR and HQ ACC/DOS, he was  called  upon  to  answer
questions and provide facts  for  senior  officers  to  make  informed
decisions.  A good staff officer maintains  objectivity  by  providing
relevant facts and lets the facts  stand  for  themselves  whether  in
agreement with the issue or not.  He does not appreciate someone,  who
does not know him, calling his motivation into question.   His  record
can speak for him as far as  his  motivation  is  concerned.   As  for
relevant facts, his  two-year  and  one-year  below-the-promotion-zone
(BPZ) record has nothing to  do  with  this  appeal  process.   He  is
appealing his in-the-promotion-zone (IPZ) board results.  In  closing,
he thanks the Board for the time and effort  spent  in  reviewing  his
case.  He believes he would have been promoted had his  OPR  and  AAMs
been in his record.  All he asks is for fair consideration.

Applicant's complete 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  reviewing  the
evidence of record, we are not persuaded that the applicant’s  records
are in error  or  that  he  has  been  the  victim  of  an  injustice.
Applicant contends that the OPR closing       30  April  1998,  should
have been included in his records at the time he  was  considered  for
promotion to lieutenant colonel by the CY98B board.  However, as noted
by the Air Force, the contested OPR was not required,  by  regulation,
to be a part of his records at the time the CY98B board convened.  The
statements from the rating chain members reveal that they intended for
the report to be  considered  by  the  selection  board  in  question;
however, these individuals do not indicate what effort  they  took  to
ensure the report was processed in time to be considered by the  CY98B
board.  In regard to the three AAMs, we believe that the applicant had
sufficient time to have his record corrected to include these  awards.
Applicant should have been aware that the awards in question were  not
a matter of record 60  days  prior  to  the  convening  of  the  CY98B
selection board.  It does not appear that he took reasonable diligence
in having his record corrected.  In view of this determination, we are
in agreement with the comments and recommendation of the Air Force and
adopt the rational expressed 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 9 March 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

                 Mr. Terry A. Yonkers, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Clarence D. Long III, Member
                 Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member
                 Ms. Phyllis L. Spence, Examiner (without vote)

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Nov 98, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C. Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 15 Dec 98.
      Exhibit D. Letter, AFBCMR, dated 28 Dec 98.
      Exhibit E. Applicant’s Response, dated 17 Feb 99.




                             TERRY A. YONKERS
                             Panel Chair