RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01445
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for  promotion
to the grade of major by the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Major  Board,
which convened on 24 Jan 00.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His decorations were incorrectly listed on his officer selection brief
(OSB).

The OSB showed two instead of  three  Air  Force  Commendation  Medals
(AFCMs).

The OSB did not reflect an awarded Air Force Achievement Medal (AFAM).

An unnecessary and inappropriate board discrepancy report  was  placed
in his officer selection record (OSR).

The citation for the AFCM, Second Oak Leaf Cluster (2OLC)  erroneously
reflected the First Oak Leaf Cluster (1OLC).  A pen and ink change was
made to reflect the 2OLC.  This displayed an unprofessional appearance
on his OSR.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided copies  of  his  OSB,
the board discrepancy report, AFCM (2OLC)  citation,  orders  awarding
him the AFAM and AFCM (1OLC), AFCM (1OLC)  certificate  and  citation,
and electronic mail (e-mail) regarding a decoration status.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
captain, having been promoted to that grade on 23 Nov 93.   His  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 4 Mar 90.

Applicant's Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      22 Jun 90              Training Report
      21 Feb 91              Meets Standards
      21 Feb 92              Meets Standards
       1 Nov 92              Meets Standards
       1 Nov 93              Meets Standards
       1 Nov 94              Meets Standards
       1 Nov 95              Meets Standards
       1 Nov 96              Meets Standards
      19 Jan 98              Meets Standards
  #  11 Mar 99               Meets Standards

# Top Report at  the  time  he  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of major by the CY00A (24 Jan 00) Major Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed  his  application
and recommended denial.  DPPB indicated that the  applicant’s  OSB,  a
part of the OSR, reflected two AFCMs; however, a  paper  citation  for
the third AFCM was received on 23 Dec 99.  To  rectify  the  disparity
between three AFCM paper citations and the OSB reflecting only two,  a
discrepancy letter was dispatched to the servicing military  personnel
flight requesting the personnel data system PDS be updated to  reflect
three AFCMs.  A copy of the discrepancy letter was placed in  the  OSR
so that board members would be aware of the disparity.  This procedure
has been in effect for many years.  Applicant's comment that it  is  a
“distracting” letter and should not have been in his OSR is merely his
opinion and they do not agree.

The DPPB noted that the paper citation for the third AFCM  (2OLC)  was
incorrect in that it reflected 1OLC.  According to DPPB, a pen and ink
change was made to the citation to reflect 2OLC.

DPPB indicated that the award of the AFAM to  the  applicant  was  not
approved until 19 Mar 00, nearly two months after the promotion  board
in question.  Therefore, it was not missing from the OSR at  the  time
of the board.

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

The  Promotion,  Evaluation,  and  Recognition  Division,  AFPC/DPPPA,
reviewed this application and recommended denial.  According to DPPPA,
the paper citation for the AFCM (2OLC) was received for  file  in  the
applicant’s records on 23 Dec 99.   The  Selection  Board  Secretariat
staff forwarded  the  board  discrepancy  report  to  the  applicant's
servicing military personnel flight (MPF), requesting they update  the
PDS to reflect all three of the applicant’s AFCMs.  DPPPA stated  that
while the applicant believes the discrepancy report is unnecessary and
“distracting,” it is merely his opinion.  His record was  not  treated
in a manner different from any other officer being considered by  this
board or any other promotion board.

DPPPA noted the applicant’s contention that the handwritten correction
to the 1OLC citation to reflect 2OLC was “amateurish” and displayed an
unprofessional appearance of his OSR.  According to  DPPPA,  this  was
not an uncommon practice and his record  was  treated  no  differently
than any other officer’s record.

DPPPA 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 decorations.  In this regard, they are guided by  AFI  36-2608,
Military Personnel Records System, Table A2.1, Item 326.  Specifically
cited is that orders granting decorations may be filed and  maintained
when a like citation is not available.  This 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 all the citations were not properly reflected  on
the OSB, they were in evidence before the board.  Therefore, the board
members were knowledgeable that 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.

Regarding the applicant’s belief that the AFAM  citation  should  have
been included in his OSR in time for the board, DPPPA  indicated  that
the decoration closeout date was 10 Jun 99, and the special order  was
published on 19 Mar 00.   AFI  36-2803,  paragraph  3.1,  states  that
decoration recommendations are entered “into official channels  within
two years and awarded within three years of the act,  achievement,  or
service performed.  In addition, AFI  36-2803,  figure  3.2,  note  4,
states that citations and special orders must be forwarded  within  30
days of the date of the special order.  Therefore, the  special  order
and citation were processed within the  guidelines  of  the  governing
directive and neither were due for file until  19  Apr  00.   Further,
until a special order is cut, a decoration does not exist.   The  AFAM
was not required to be on file for the board, nor could it  have  been
since the special order awarding the decoration had not been published
when the board convened.

According to DPPPA, there was no clear evidence that the discrepancies
with the AFCM citations negatively impacted the applicant's  promotion
opportunity.  Central boards evaluate the entire  OSR  (including  the
promotion recommendation form, officer  performance  reports,  officer
effectiveness  reports,  training  reports,  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.   DPPPA
stated that  they  are  not  convinced  the  decoration  discrepancies
contributed to the applicant’s nonselection.

A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his response, the applicant indicated that he believes the  various
material  errors  in  his   records   presented   an   incorrect   and
unprofessional appearance of his records when they were considered  by
the CY00A Major Board.  These errors warrant an SSB.

Applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_________________________________________________________________

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.  We took notice  of  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  (OPRs)  and  adopt  their
rationale as the basis for its conclusion that the applicant  has  not
been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore, in  the  absence
of clear-cut evidence to support a determination that the  applicant’s
record before the  original  selection  board  was  so  inaccurate  or
misleading that the board was unable to  make  a  reasonable  decision
concerning his promotability in relationship to his peers, 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 11 Oct 00, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Ms. Charlene M. Bradley, Panel Chair
      Mr. Mike Novel, Member
      Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 23 May 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 19 Jun 00.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 23 Jun 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Jul 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, applicant, dated 3 Aug 00.




                                   CHARLENE M. BRADLEY
                                   Panel Chair