RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03398
                 INDEX CODE:  131

                 COUNSEL:  NONE

                 HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He receive a direct promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His military record was grossly incomplete and in error prior  to  his
in-the-promotion  zone  (IPZ)  lieutenant  colonel  promotion   board,
despite extraordinary efforts on his  part  to  rectify  the  problem.
Efforts to correct his records were severely  hampered  by  his  being
deployed to a remote location immediately upon his permanent change of
station (PCS).  Applicant states that while being deployed he was only
able to check his personnel records on 12 May 1998 and then discovered
several  omissions  in  his  records.   He  never  saw  his  promotion
recommendation form (PRF) until he returned home in  June  1998,  well
after the promotion board met.  The following are documented omissions
from his personnel records and Officer Selection Brief  (OSB)  at  the
time of the CY98B lieutenant colonel board:

1)  Overseas Long Tour at Spangdahlem  Air  Base,  Germany:   Jan  84-
    Jan 87.
2)  USAF Aircraft Mishap & Safety  Investigation  School:   Sep  90  -
    Oct 90.
3)  Squadron Officer School In-Residence:  Oct 93 - Dec 93.
4)  USAF Electronic Warfare Officer School:  Aug 94 - Nov 94.
5)  F-4G Formal Instructor Course:  Jan 95 - May 95.
6)  Bachelor of Science in Public Management:  May 1981.
7)  Overseas Long Tour Ribbon:  Jan 1987.
8)  Air Force Longevity Service Award, 3rd Device:  Jan 1998.
9)  Southwest Asia Service Medal w/Device:  March 1993.

Applicant also alleges  that  an  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR),
closing out 3 June 1996 [30 Jun 96], that he had no knowledge of,  was
inserted into his Officer Selection Record.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

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

Applicant was considered, but not selected for promotion to the  grade
of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY98B  Central  Lieutenant   Colonel
Selection Board.   He  was  also  considered,  but  not  selected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel  by  the  CY99A  Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.   As  a  result  of  a  successful
appeal of the 30 June 1996 OPR through the ERAB,  applicant  has  been
scheduled for SSB consideration by the CY98B Board.  On  21  September
1999, the BCMR approved a recommendation by the Air Force to set aside
applicant’s nonselection by the CY99A Board.  Therefore,  he  will  be
considered for  promotion  by  the  CY99B  Lieutenant  Colonel  board.
Additionally, applicant will be considered by SSB for the CY98B  Board
held in conjunction with the CY99B board.

Applicant’s OPR profile, since return to active  duty  on  7 September
1996, is as follows:

          PERIOD ENDING            OVERALL EVALUATION

          8 Feb 96 - 6 Sep 96      AF Fm 77, “No report required
                                   according to AFI 36-2402.”
            31 Jul 97              Meets Standards
         #  30 Jan 98              Education/Training Report
         ## 19 Jan 99              Meets Standards

#   Top report at time of nonselection to the grade of lieutenant
    colonel by the CY98B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board.
##  Top report at time of nonselection to the grade of lieutenant
    colonel by the CY99A Central Lieutenant Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The NCOIC, Assignment  Quality  Control  Procedures,  HQ  AFPC/DPAPP1,
states that they have reviewed the applicant’s source document Officer
Performance Reports (OPRs) and an award of the Air Force  Commendation
Medal (AFCM) for his tour  of  duty  in  Germany.   Based  upon  these
documents, they concur with input of the overseas duty history for his
tour of duty in Germany and have taken appropriate action  to  correct
this discrepancy.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Reports & Queries Section,  HQ  AFPC/DPAPS1,  states,  with
respect to the applicant’s duty history, that they have  reviewed  the
applicant’s source document Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) and  AF
Forms 475 Education/Training Reports against the applicant’s Personnel
Data System (PDS) duty history.  Based upon these documents,  they  do
not agree with input of entries for the “USAF Aircraft Mishap & Safety
Investigation School” Sep -  Oct  90;  the  “USAF  Electronic  Warfare
Officer School” Aug - Nov 94; or, the “F-4G Formal Instructor  Course”
Jan - May 95 courses because no AF Form 475 Education/Training reports
were rendered.  In accordance with AFCSM 36-699 (V1). 5.20.3.3.7, duty
is to be updated for training only when training reports are rendered.
 Since the  CY98B  OSB,  the  Professional  Military  Education  (PME)
portion of the applicant’s record also shows Squadron  Officer  School
(SOS) in residence.

Other corrections  were  made  to  the  applicant’s  duty  history  as
follows:

1.  Changed duty command level for 820409 to Student for time spent in
Undergraduate Navigator Training.

2.  Changed duty title for 851208 to Weapons System Officer,  F-4E  to
reflect duty title on the 851208 OPR.

3.  Changed the duty title for 870127 to Ch, Flt Test WSO (F-4C/D) for
a clearer duty title.  Changed MAJCOM to AFLC, duty command  level  to
“Center,” and organization to Sacramento Air  Logistics  Center  since
this is the information reflected on the OPR of 8 Dec 86 - 18 Jul  87.


4.  Inserted a new duty history entry for 870719 to reflect change  in
duty title reflected on the 19 Jul 87 - 13 Apr 88 OPR of AFLC Chief F-
4 Weapons Systems Officer at Sacramento ALC.

5.  Changed 900709 to show TAC as the MAJCOM.

6.  Added a new duty entry for 931210, commencing on the day after SOS
graduation for F-4G Weapons Systems Officer in Boise, Idaho.

7.  Added a duty entry for 970801 for time spent as a Weapons  Systems
Officer Student, F-15E at Seymour Johnson, NC.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit D.

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPA,  states  that  the
applicant contends he did not have time to update his records prior to
the CY98B board because he was serving overseas on a  TDY  assignment.
The applicant was recalled to active duty 7  September  1996  and  was
eligible for below-the-zone (BPZ) promotion consideration by the CY97C
central board.  That means he should have received a copy of his CY97C
officer preselection brief (OPB) approximately 120 day prior  to  July
1997.  The CY97C OSB  reflected  the  erroneous  degree,  the  PME  in
residence annotation, and the missing/erroneous assignment date on his
OSB.  While it may be true he did not have access  to  the  supporting
documents he needed to update his records in 1998, he did have  access
to them in 1997.  Had  he  reviewed  his  CY97C  OPB,  he  would  have
discovered the missing data and had ample opportunity  to  correct  it
prior to his in-the-promotion zone (IPZ) consideration  by  the  CY98B
board.
The missing PME in-residence annotation has now been corrected.

Missing academic information.   The  Bachelor  of  Science  degree  in
Public Management is still missing from his records.  Air Force policy
only allows the two most recent degrees to be mentioned  on  the  OSB.
Only the most recent degree will reflect the date it was awarded.  The
subsequent degree will show only the level, specialty and school.   If
the history degree is erroneous or was  earned  prior  to  the  public
management degree, the applicant must provide the original transcripts
to the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT).  They  are  the  only
agency authorized to update academic date.

With regard to applicant’s allegation that he did not receive his  PRF
until after the CY98B  board  adjourned,  the  regulation  requires  a
senior rater to complete a PRF no earlier than 60 days  prior  to  the
selection board.  He is also responsible for  providing  the  ratee  a
copy of the PRF approximately 30 days before the central board.  It is
customary to leave a copy of the permanent change of  station  orders,
which contain the new unit of assignment,  with  the  departing  unit.
The senior rater’s letter submitted by the applicant is undated and it
is unclear when the letter was generated.

To grant a direct promotion to the applicant would be  unfair  to  all
other officers who have extremely competitive records and also did not
get promoted.  Other than the applicant’s own opinion, he has provided
no substantiation to his allegations.  The burden of proof is on  him.
Absent clear-cut evidence the applicant would have been a selectee  by
the CY98B board,  a  duty  constituted  board  applying  the  complete
promotion criteria is in the most advantageous position to render this
vital determination.  Based on the evidence provided, a recommendation
of denial is appropriate.

A copy of the Air Force evaluation is attached at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT’S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to the applicant on
1 February 1999  for  review  and  response.   Applicant  submitted  a
rebuttal and states, in  summary,  that  he  was  already  engaged  in
repairing the erroneous  and  missing  data  contained  in  his  CY97C
Officer Selection Brief (OSB) when he returned to  active  duty  after
six years.  He states that his records had to be  reconstructed  which
took nearly a year to complete.

Applicant states that a gross error in his records recently  surfaced.
An OPR has suddenly materialized at HQ AFMPC with a  3 June  1996  [30
Jun 96] close out date.  Up to this time, his records were  documented
indicating no report available for this particular  evaluation  period
when in fact there was.  The combination of  so  many  errors  in  his
records, and the futility of endeavoring to rectify them over and over
again, grossly exceeds what is expected to be “reasonable  diligence.”
Applicant states that he made every  effort  possible  to  ensure  his
records were perfect for  his  in-the-promotion  zone  board,  yet  it
doesn’t appear as if  they’ll  even  be  correct  for  his  above-the-
promotion zone.

Applicant also submits a statement from the Chief,  COPE  THUNDER,  in
support of his requests.

Applicant’s rebuttal, with attachment, is attached 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.  After a thorough review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded that his records should be corrected to reflect  entries  on
his Officer Selection Brief with regard to the three training  courses
for September to October 1990, August to November 1994, or January  to
May 1995; the Bachelor of Science in Public Management - May 1981; the
Overseas  Long  Tour  Ribbon;  Air  Force  Longevity  Service   Award;
Southwest Asia Service Medal; or, that  he  should  receive  a  direct
promotion to the grade of lieutenant  colonel.   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.   At  the  outset,  we  note  that  as  stated  by
AFPC/DPAPS1, in their review of the applicant’s  duty  history  versus
his source documents, they noted many errors on  the  applicant’s  OSB
and corrections have been made to his duty history.  On  reaching  the
conclusions  regarding  the  remainder  of  applicant’s  requests,  we
considered the following:

    a.  As stated by AFPC/DPAPS1, with regard to  the  three  training
courses, duty is to be updated for training only when training reports
are rendered.  There is  no  evidence  that  AF  Forms  475,  Training
Reports, were rendered on the applicant for these courses.

    b.  The missing academic information, with regard to the  Bachelor
of Science degree in Public Management for May 1981, AFPC/DPPPA states
that Air Force policy only allows the two most recent  degrees  to  be
mentioned on the Officer Selection  Brief  (OSB)  and  there  are  two
degrees present on the OSB, a  Masters  degree  in  Aerospace  Science
Technology awarded in 1988, and a Bachelors degree in History and only
the most recent degree will reflect the date  awarded.   If  applicant
believes the history degree is erroneous or was earned  prior  to  the
public management degree, he must provide original transcripts to  the
Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) to have his records  updated.


    c.  With regard to the Overseas Long Tour Ribbon -  January  1987,
the Air Force Longevity Service Award with 3rd Device - January  1998,
and the Southwest Asia Service Medal with Device - March 1993, we note
these  awards  are  service  awards  and  are  not  reflected  on   an
individual’s OSB.

    d.  Regarding the applicant’s request for a direct  promotion,  we
found no justification or merit to conclude that applicant  should  be
automatically promoted.  In this respect,  we  observe  that  officers
compete for promotion under the whole person concept.  An officer  may
be qualified, but in the judgment of a  selection  board  vested  with
discretionary authority – may not  be  the  best  qualified  of  those
available for the limited number of promotion  vacancies.   Therefore,
in the absence of clear-cut evidence that an officer would  have  been
selected for promotion, a duly constituted selection board is  in  the
most advantageous position to make this vital  determination  and  its
prerogative  to  do  so  should  only  be  usurped  in   extraordinary
circumstances.  We therefore 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 25 October 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603.

                  Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
                  Ms. Patricia D. Vestal, Member
                  Mr. Lawrence R. Leehy, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 24 Nov 98, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Officer Selection Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 14 Jan 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 14 Jan 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 19 Jan 99, w/atch.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 1 Feb 99.
   Exhibit G.  Applicant’s Letter, dated 10 Mar 99 w/atch.





                                   DAVID W. MULGREW

                                   Panel Chair