RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-00133
            INDEX CODE:  107.00, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  Yes

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be considered for promotion to the grade of colonel by Special  Selection
Board (SSB) for the Calendar Year 1999A (CY99A) (2 Aug 99)  Central  Colonel
Board with inclusion of his Meritorious Service Medal (MSM), Fifth Oak  Leaf
Cluster (5OLC), in his officer selection record (OSR).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When he reviewed his records that met his primary zone promotion  board,  it
had a board discrepancy report included.  The narrative  for  his  MSM  from
his last assignment was missing.  It was  extremely  important  for  him  to
have that document reviewed as it  detailed  unique  information  not  found
elsewhere in his record.

In support of his appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  copy  of  the  Board
Discrepancy Report for the CY99A Board.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active  Federal  Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD)  is
9 Jan 78.  He is currently serving on extended active duty in the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 May 94.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since 1996 follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             29 Feb 96               Meets Standards
              1 Oct 96               Meets Standards
              1 Oct 97               Meets Standards
              8 Jul 98               Meets Standards
             29 May 99               Meets Standards
              5 Jun 00               Meets Standards

The Board Discrepancy Report for the CY99A Colonel Board, dated  28 Jul  99,
provided by the applicant, addressed to  his  servicing  military  personnel
flight, requested a copy of the citation filed behind the Officer  Selection
Brief (OSB).  The decoration was listed on the OSB used  by  the  board  but
the citation was not filed in his OSR until 13 Sep 99.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the grade  of
colonel by the CY99A Colonel Board.  He was selected for  promotion  to  the
grade of colonel by the CY00A (17 Jul 00) Colonel Board.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Promotion,  Evaluation  &  Recognition   Division,   AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed this application and indicated that the purpose  of  the  placement
of decoration citations in the OSR is to make the  board  members  aware  of
the level of the decoration.  AFI 36-2608,  Table  A2.1,  Item  326,  states
that orders granting decorations may be filed and  maintained  when  a  like
citation is not available which 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.   Even
though the MSM, 5OLC, citation was not on file for  the  board,  it  was  in
evidence before the board.  As a matter of interest,  DPPP  noted  that  the
applicant’s significant accomplishments cited  in  the  decoration  citation
were  also  included  in  his  29 May  99  OPR.   The  board  members   were
knowledgeable 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,  it  was  factored  into   the   promotion
evaluation.

DPPP further states that, while it may  be  argued  that  the  missing  MSM,
5OLC, was a factor in  the  applicant’s  nonselection,  there  is  no  clear
evidence that it negatively impacted  his  promotion  opportunity.   Central
boards evaluate the entire OSR (including the promotion recommendation  form
(PRF), OPRs, Officer Effectiveness Reports (OERs), Training  Reports  (TRs),
letters  of  evaluation,  decorations,  and  OSB),  assessing  whole  person
factors such as job performance, professional qualities, depth  and  breadth
of experience, leadership, and academic and professional military  education
(PME).  DPPP is not convinced the  missing  decoration  contributed  to  the
applicant’s nonselection.  Based on the evidence  provided,  they  recommend
denial.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 14 Aug 00, applicant provided two PRFs  for  in-the-zone  and  above-the-
zone.  The in-the-zone PRF and the  above-the-zone  resident  schools  board
PRF was written within a few  weeks  of  one  another  yet  they  are  quite
different.  He states that the PRF is supposed to reflect an  entire  career
and if the Board would review them, they will see  his  in-the-zone  PRF  is
much weaker than the one written just a short time later  for  his  Air  War
College schools board.

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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.  Applicant’s 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.  No evidence has been presented which would lead us to  believe  that
the omission of  the  citation  to  accompany  the  MSM,  5OLC,  caused  the
applicant’s records to be so inaccurate or misleading that  the  members  of
the duly  constituted  selection  board  were  precluded  from  rendering  a
reasonable decision  concerning  his  promotability  in  comparison  to  his
peers.  We therefore agree with the recommendation  of  the  Air  Force  and
adopt the rationale expressed  as  the  basis  for  our  decision  that  the
missing citation from his record was a harmless error.  Therefore,  we  find
no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief sought.

4.    The applicant’s case is adequately documented  and  it  has  not  been
shown that a personal appearance, with or without counsel, will 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 5 October 2000, under the provisions of Air Force Instruction 36-
2603:

                  Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
                  Mr. George Franklin, Member
                  Mr. Steven A. Shaw, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 13 Jan 00, w/atch.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 9 Feb 00.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 18 Feb 00.
     Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 14 Aug 00, w/atchs.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair