RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-00748

            INDEX NUMBER:  131.01, 131.10


            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED: YES

_______________________________________________________________________
_______

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be reconsidered for promotion to the grade of colonel by the  CY96
Medical Corps (MC) Selection Board, which convened on 12 Nov  96;  and
that the Officer Selection  Brief  (OSB)  prepared  for  the  CY96  MC
Selection Board be corrected to show her race is African American  and
she was certified by the American Board of Family Practice.

_______________________________________________________________________
_______

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Her record before the  CY96  MC  Colonel  Selection  Board  failed  to
include evidence of her board  certification  as  a  family  physician
since 1988,  with  recertification  in  1995.   The  omission  of  her
certification adversely  affected  the  board’s  view  of  her  career
development.  Since coming on active duty, she has  had  some  of  the
toughest jobs in the Medical Service and  has  performed  commendably,
receiving a “Definitely Promote (DP)” recommendation for promotion  to
colonel, below the zone, from an  Air  Materiel  Command  (AMC)  level
board.  She provided verification of her board  certification  to  the
Military Personnel Flight  (MPF)  within  60  days  of  receiving  the
information in 1995,  and  in  sufficient  time  to  have  her  record
properly reflect her accomplishments.  She was not aware of the  error
prior to the selection board because the History  Brief  she  received
did not have the same information as the OSB she received in  Feb  99.
She was unable to make a proper comparison of the information she  was
provided and the information contained in her records  for  review  by
the board.  Additionally, her OSB listed her race as caucasian.

In support of  her  appeal,  Applicant  provided  the  recertification
letter from the American Board of Family Practice, dated  11  Sep  95;
her PRF for the CY94 MC Colonel Selection Board; and the OSB  for  the
CY96 MC Colonel Selection Board (Exhibit A).

_______________________________________________________________________
_______

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information obtained from the Personnel Data  System  (PDS)  indicates
that Applicant is a Reserve officer who was ordered to extended active
duty on 1 Jul 84, in the grade of captain.  She is  currently  serving
on active duty  in  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel,  having  been
promoted to that grade, effective 18 Nov 91.  Her total active federal
commissioned service date (TAFCSD) is 30 Sep 81.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile  since  attaining
the grade of lieutenant colonel follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       1 Aug 92  Meets Standards
       1 Aug 93  Meets Standards
       1 Aug 94  Meets Standards
      18 Jun 95  Meets Standards
         *  18 Jun 96  Meets Standards
      18 Jun 97  Meets Standards
      18 Jun 98  Meets Standards
       3 Jan 99  Meets Standards

*Top report CY96 MC Colonel Selection Board

Documentation in  Applicant’s  selection  record  indicates  that  the
letter from the American Board of Family Practice, dated  11  Sep  95,
was filed on 10 Jan 97.  Her OSB for the CY95 (BPZ), CY96  (IPZ),  and
CY97  (APZ)  MC  Colonel  Selection  Boards  indicated  her  race   as
Caucasian.  Her race was corrected to show “Black” on the OSB for  the
CY98 MC Colonel Selection Board.  She was nonselected for promotion to
the grade of colonel by the CY95, CY96, CY97, and CY98 boards.

_______________________________________________________________________
_______

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The Chief, Officer Promotion  Management,  AFPC/DPPPO,  reviewed  this
application and recommended denial.  He  cited  AFI  36-2501,  Officer
Promotions  and  Selective  Continuation,  paragraph  6.3.2.2,   which
states, “Do not have an SSB if, by  exercising  reasonable  diligence,
the officer should have discovered the error  or  omission  and  could
have taken corrective action before  the  originally  scheduled  board
convened.”  Applicant’s initial board certification pay expired in Jan
96, and was not reinstated until receipt of the Sep 95 recertification
in Dec 96,  after  the  promotion  board  convened.   A  copy  of  the
recertification letter was filed in the OSR in Jan 97, also after  the
promotion board met.  Approximately  100  days  prior  to  the  board,
officers are provided an officer preselection brief which mirrors  the
OSB  and  indicates  board  certification.   Applicant  contends   she
received a history brief which did not contain the same information as
the OSB.  Officers are also provided an instruction sheet  for  review
of the brief which outlines how to correct discrepancies prior to  the
board.  No documentation was provided to indicate Applicant took  such
action or that she did not receive the officer preselection  brief  or
the instructions that come with it.  A complete copy of the AFPC/DPPPO
evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief  of  Operations,  Selection  Board  Secretariat,  AFPC/DPPB,
reviewed this application and stated that their records  confirm  that
Applicant’s race on her OSBs was  coded  as  caucasian  when  she  was
considered by the CY95,  CY96,  and  CY97  boards.   Further  research
revealed that the preselection briefs sent to  Applicant  also  showed
her race as caucasian.  The OSB was corrected when she was  considered
by the CY98 board.  Applicant provided no evidence that she  initiated
any action to correct her race.  Unless she provides documentation  to
show she tried to correct the error during  the  1995-1997  timeframe,
DPPB recommended denial.  A complete copy  of  the  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit D.

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation, and Recognition Division, AFPC/DPPP,
accepted the findings of the Chief, Officer Promotion Management,  and
added  that  Applicant  would  have  received  her  second  below-the-
promotion-zone consideration by the time of the CY95 board in Nov  95.
The chief questions why Applicant did not ensure a copy of  her  board
recertification letter was placed in her OSR  and  that  the  PDS  was
updated prior to the board’s convening date.  The chief also questions
why Applicant did not notice  her  decrease  in  pay  when  her  board
certification pay expired in Jan 96,  and  was  not  reinstated  until
approximately Dec 96.  With regard to Applicant’s race on her OSBs for
the CY95, CY96 and CY97 selection boards, the chief could not  explain
the errors; however, Applicant should have noted the errors and  taken
action to correct them when she was provided her  preselection  briefs
prior to those boards.  A complete copy of  DPPP’s  evaluation  is  at
Exhibit E.

_______________________________________________________________________
_______

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Applicant reiterated her contentions that she made repeated efforts to
correct her record prior to the CY96  board  and  she  should  not  be
denied  the  opportunity  for  promotion  consideration   because   of
negligence not of her doing.  She questions the  relevancy  of  “Facts
and Comments b (sic c)” pertaining to her nonselection by the CY97 and
CY98 boards.  Applicant’s complete response  with  attachments  is  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  injustice.   We  noted  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of  the  case;  however,  we
agree with the opinions and recommendations of the Air  Force  offices
of primary responsibility and adopt their rationales as the bases  for
our  conclusion  that  the  applicant  failed  to  provide  sufficient
evidence that she  exercised  reasonable  diligence  in  ensuring  the
accuracy of her selection record and brief.  Therefore, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis  to  recommend  granting
the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of  the  issue(s)   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_______________________________________________________________________
_______

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 2 November 1999, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                       Mr. Douglas J. Heady, Panel Chair
                       Ms. Marcia J. Bachman, Member
                       Mr. Clarence D. Long, III, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 17 Mar 99, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 23 Apr 99.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 13 May 99.
      Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 2 Jun 99.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 14 Jun 99.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, Applicant, dated 10 Aug 99, w/atchs.




                                       DOUGLAS J. HEADY
                                       Panel Chair