RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00351
                       INDEX CODE:  131.00

                       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  1998B
Lieutenant Colonel Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Officer Selection Brief (OSB) reviewed by the board was in error.

He states that the award dates  for  his  Joint  Service  Commendation
Medal (JSCM) and the Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM)  were  not  on
the OSB.  He also states that the 30 August 1997  duty  history  entry
should reflect a  duty  title  of  F-16/C-130  Program  Manager,”  not
“Chief, Aviation Division.”  Also, the 20 November 1990  duty  history
entry should be Rhein Main AB GE instead of DATA MASKED.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The 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  Lieutenant  Colonel  Board  that
convened on 1 June 1998.

OPR profile since 1992:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                 17 Jul 92        Meets Standards
                 17 Jul 93        Meets Standards
                 17 Jul 94        Meets Standards
                 17 Jul 95        Meets Standards
                 17 Jul 96        Meets Standards
                 30 Jun 97        Meets Standards
                 30 Jun 98        Meets Standards

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Reports and Queries Team, Directorate  of  Assignments,  HQ
AFPC/DPAIS1, reviewed this application and states that  based  on  the
source documents in the applicant’s records, the OPR  for  the  970830
duty title entry match the OSB.  The 901120 is in error based  on  the
OPR on file in the applicant’s records.   Entry  reads  “Data  Masked”
should read “Rhein Main AFB GE.”

They do not have any  source  documents  to  substantiate  making  the
change to the 970830 duty title.  However, the 901120 duty location is
in error based on the OPR on file.  The Personnel  Data  System  (PDS)
was updated to reflect the correct duty location.  They  defer  to  HQ
AFPC/DPPPAB.

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

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation & Recognition  Division,  Directorate
of Personnel Program Management,  HQ  AFPC/DPPP,  also  reviewed  this
application and states that the award dates for his JSCM and AFAM were
missing from the OSB.  They are unable to explain why this information
was missing from the OSB as it  was  displayed  on  the  officer  pre-
selection brief (OPB) provided by the applicant.  However, they do not
support reconsideration on this issue since the two citations were  on
file in his record for the board.  Therefore, the board  members  were
knowledgeable the decorations were given which is the ultimate purpose
of including them in the promotion selection process.  Since the board
members were aware of  the  decorations,  it  was  factored  into  the
promotion evaluation,  and  promotion  reconsideration  would  not  be
appropriate.

Concerning the 30 August 1997 Duty History Entry, they concur with  HQ
AFPC/DPAIS1 assessment.  In order to successfully challenge this,  the
applicant must provide some type of documentation to reflect when  the
new duty title went into effect.  They  note  the  30  June  1998  OPR
currently in the applicant’s record still reflects the “Branch  Chief”
title.  The OPR was completed well after the  PRF  that  was  prepared
approximately 60 days in advance of the board convening date  (1 April
1998 time frame).  It appears the PRF was prepared with  an  erroneous
duty title.  If this is not the case then the applicant should provide
the appropriate documentation  to  substantiate  his  claim.   If  the
applicant believes the 30 June 1998 OPR is  in  error,  then  he  must
appeal the OPR under the provisions  of  AFI  36-2401.   They  do  not
support promotion reconsideration  on  this  issue.   Even  if  it  is
determined the duty history entry should reflect  “F-16/C-130  Program
Manager,” they still would be opposed to promotion reconsideration  as
this duty title is on the P0598B PRF.  Therefore, the board was  aware
of the duty title and took it  into  consideration  in  the  promotion
process.

As for the 20 November 1998 duty history entry, applicant contends the
“DATA MASKED” information on this entry could  present  a  probability
that a board  member  would  not  recognize  the  Mission  Pilot  duty
position {subsequent entry} as being his first duty position in a  new
weapon system at a new unit of assignment.  As such, the chronological
change in duty title from Asst Chief of Standardization Evaluation  to
Mission Pilot conveys as downgrade in responsibility.”  HQ AFPC/DPAISI
also addressed  this  issue  in  their  advisory  and  determined  the
information in the personnel data system (PDS) was incorrect and  made
the appropriate changes.

The applicant was considered  below-the-promotion  zone  (BPZ  by  the
CY96C (8 Jul 96) (P0596C) and CY97C(21  Jul  97)  (P0597C)  lieutenant
colonel boards.  They retrieved the OSBs reviewed by those boards  and
noted the incorrect data on those documents  as  well.   As  with  the
PO598B board, the applicant was also provided an OPB  for  the  P0596C
and P0597C boards approximately 100 days in advance of  the  convening
dates of the boards.  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 see
no evidence of the applicant attempting to correct the error prior  to
9 April 1998.

This portion of the  application  may  also  be  dismissed  under  the
equitable doctrine of laches, which  denies  relief  to  one  who  has
unreasonably and inexcusably delayed in  asserting  a  claim.   Laches
consists of two elements:  inexcusable delay and prejudice to the  Air
Force resulting therefrom.  In the applicant’s  case,  he  has  waited
eight years to file and took no action on the claim before that.   The
applicant  has  inexcusably   delayed   his   appeal   (providing   no
explanation) and, as a result, the Air Force no longer  has  documents
on file, memories fade, and this complicates the ability to  determine
the merits of his position.  In addition, the test to  be  applied  is
not whether the applicant discovered the error within three years, but
whether, through due diligence, it  was  discoverable.   Clearly,  the
alleged error upon which he relies has  been  discoverable  since  the
alleged errors occurred.  In short, the Air  Force  asserts  that  the
applicant’s unreasonable delay regarding  a  matter  now  dating  back
eight years has greatly  complicated  its  ability  to  determine  the
merits of the applicant’s position.

The alleged errors upon which he relies have been  discoverable  since
publication of the duty history  entry  in  question.   DOD  Directive
1320.11 states, “A special selection  board  shall  not--consider  any
officer who might, by maintaining  reasonable  careful  records,  have
discovered and taken steps to correct that error or omission on  which
the original board based its decision against promotion.”   Therefore,
they see no valid reason to  waive  the  statute  of  limitations  and
consider the applicant’s requests.

If the AFBCMR considers, then they recommend denial of the request for
promotion reconsideration due to lack of merit.  By law, a claim  must
be filed within three years of the date of discovery  of  the  alleged
error or injustice (10 USC 1552[b]).  It is obvious  that  the  errors
claimed here  were  discoverable  at  the  time  they  occurred.   The
applicant provided nothing to convince them that the errors  were  not
discoverable until October  1998,  nor  have  he  offered  a  concrete
explanation for filing late.

Even though  the  error  has  been  corrected,  they  do  not  support
promotion reconsideration on this issue as the correct information was
available for  the  board’s  consideration  on  the  corresponding  22
November 1990 officer performance report (OPR).

The applicant could have communicated with  the  board  president  and
informed him of the discrepancies  on  his  OSB,  however,  they  have
verified the applicant elected not to exercise this entitlement.

There is no clear evidence that it negatively impacted  his  promotion
opportunity.  Central boards evaluate  the  entire  officer  selection
record (OSR), therefore, they are  not  convinced  the  contested  OSB
discrepancies caused the applicant’s nonselection.

Considering the evidence  provided,  they  do  not  support  promotion
reconsideration.  They recommend the request for reconsideration based
on the 20 November 1990 duty history be time-barred.  If  they  AFBCMR
considers on merit, then they recommend denial.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  states  that  he
spoke with a member at AFPC, Officer Promotion Branch, and  he  stated
that “there is nothing wrong with your record, I wish I could tell you
there was something that caused you not to be promoted.  Actually your
record is very strong; you were a victim of the numbers.   You  scored
8.2, the board drew the line at 8.25, you were on the bubble, there is
no difference between your  record  and  the  150  persons  that  were
promoted in front of you."  He states that AFPC/DPPP letter agreed  to
the mistakes but proceeded to explain, why these would not have made a
difference, even to the point of trivializing,  with  comments  as  “a
harmless administrative error” – leaving him with the impression  that
his arguments were not fairly and objectively examined.   He  believes
not one, but three errors did make a significant difference and placed
him on the cut line or the bubble.

He  states  that  AFPC/DPPP  did  not  adequately  address  the  issue
concerning his missing decoration dates.  The lack of decoration dates
on his OSB puts the unnecessary and cumbersome responsibility  on  the
board member to discern the time period of  the  award.   The  missing
award dates were critical since these awards were received during  his
current duty assignment.  He  believes  the  award  dates  would  have
communicated to the board members that his current performance at  his
new duty station was outstanding.

He never received a formal promotion eligibility packaged as  required
by AFPC or  MAJCOM.   Only  after  he  repeatedly  inquired  with  his
administration  section  about  receiving  a   promotion   eligibility
package, did he receive a copy of only the OPB portion 30  days  prior
to the promotion board, not 100 days as per Air Force  regulation  and
as stated by AFPC/DPPP.  His OPB did not include the required list  of
POCs for executing corrective  action  to  his  records.   He  had  to
initiate corrective  action  through  his  joint  unit  administration
section.  Having to rely on  this  cumbersome  process  only  a  month
before the promotion board seriously handicapped his efforts  to  make
changes to his record in a timely manner.

HQ  AFPC/DPAISI  states  that  there  are  no  source   documents   to
substantiate  changing  his  duty  title.   CENTCOM’s  Joint  Manpower
Personnel (JMP)  Roster  lists  his  correct  duty  title  (F-16/C-130
Program Manager) with a duty  effective  date  30  August  1997.   His
current Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF) for the Lieutenant Colonel
Board reflects the correct duty title.

He states that he initiated action to correct the errors several years
prior to the promotion board.  His avenue for making these changes was
always through the unit  administration  sections.   His  request  for
consideration for the next  SSB  is  based  on  identified  errors  to
important data in his record.

Applicant's  complete  response,  with  attachments,  is  attached  at
Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.    The applicant has exhausted all remedies  provided  by  existing
law or regulations.

2.    The application was not timely filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting correction  to
his Officer Selection Brief and Special Selection Board  consideration
for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel.   At  the  time  the
applicant’s records were considered by the CY98B selection board,  the
award dates for his Joint Service Commendation Medal and the Air Force
Achievement Medal were not present  on  his  Officer  Selection  Brief
(OSB).  In view of these errors, and noting the correction made to his
duty history entry, we believe that the applicant’s records should  be
considered for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by SSB for
the CY98B board.  Therefore, we recommend his records be corrected  to
the extent indicated below.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable  error  or  injustice  warranting  favorable
action on his request pertaining to the duty title “F-16/C-130 Program
Manager.”  The Air Force reviewed this request and  noted  that  there
were no source documents to  substantiate  making  this  change.   The
Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 30 June  1998,  currently  in
the applicant’s record reflects the duty title of  “F-16/C-130  Branch
Chief.”  The P0598B PRF reflects “F-16/C-130  Program  Manager”  which
appears to have been prepared with an erroneous duty  title  based  on
the OPR closing 30 June 1998.  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 RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating  to  APPLICANT,  to  include  an  Officer   Selection   Brief
reflecting the Joint Service  Commendation  Medal  for  the  period  2
November 1997 to 6 November 1997, the Air Force Achievement Medal  for
the period 15 September 1987 to 20 December 1990, and the  20 November
1990 duty history entry  of  Rhein  Main  AB  GE,  be  considered  for
promotion to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  by  Special  Selection
Board for the Calendar Year 1998B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board.

________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 13 July 1999, under the  provisions  of  AFI  36-
2603:

            Mr. Vaughn E. Schlunz, Panel Chair
            Mr. William Anderson, Member
            Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

A majority of the Board voted to correct the records, as  recommended.
Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson voted to deny the application, but does not
desire  to  submit  a  minority  report.   The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 3 February 1999, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPAIS1, dated 18 February 1999.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPP, dated 25 February 1999.
   Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated   March 1999.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 June 1999, w/atchs.




                 VAUGHN E. SCHLUNZ
                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 99-00351





MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

      The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air
Force relating to APPLICANT to include an Officer Selection Brief
reflecting the Joint Service Commendation Medal for the period 2
November 1997 to 6 November 1997, the Air Force Achievement Medal for
the period 15 September 1987 to 20 December 1990, and the 20 November
1990 duty history entry of Rhein Main AB GE, be considered for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection
Board for the Calendar Year 1998B Central Lieutenant Colonel Board and
for any subsequent boards for which the corrections were not a matter
of record.





            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency