RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-01524

            INDEX NUMBER:  107.00; 131.01


            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED:  YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The Aerial Achievement Medals (AAMs), 4th and 5th Oak Leaf Clusters
(OLCs), be included in his  Officer  Selection  Record  (OSR);  the
Citation for Award of the AAM (Basic) be included in his  OSR;  and
that his record be considered by a Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)
for promotion to the grade of major by the  CY97C  (16  June  1997)
Major Selection Board.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  record  for  in-the-promotion  zone  (IPZ)  consideration  was
factually incomplete.  His OSR was missing the 4th and 5th OLCs  to
the AAM.  Both medals were approved over  one  year  prior  to  the
board date.  His record was also missing the citation for the basic
AAM.  The absence of the basic AAM citation unfairly  impacted  his
promotion opportunity because  his  records  showed  a  discrepancy
between citations and the number of AAMs reflected in  his  record.
His record reflected four out of six of the AAMs he earned and only
three of the six AAM citations.  These medals  provide  affirmation
of the quality of his recent performance and thereby reflected  his
future  promotion  potential.   The  absence  of  this  information
unfairly affected his promotion opportunity at the  primary  board.
Discrepancies are critical negatives in  the  comparison  of  large
numbers of competitive records in a small amount of time--where the
board looks for any discriminator.

There is no doubt in his mind that he would have been promoted IPZ,
if the board had seen the medals and citations that  were  required
to be in his records.

In support  of  his  appeal,  the  applicant  provided  a  personal
statement; a copy of  the  selection  brief  for  the  CY97C  board
showing 4 AAMs; copies of the special orders and citations  showing
effective dates for the  4th  and  5th  OLCs  to  the  AAM;  E-mail
concerning the absence of the basic citation; and  a  copy  of  the
basic citation for the AAM.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data   System   (PDS)
indicates that the applicant was  appointed  a  second  lieutenant,
Reserve of the Air Force, on  28  May  1986,  and  was  voluntarily
ordered to extended active duty on the same date.  He is  currently
serving on active  duty  in  the  grade  of  captain,  having  been
promoted to that grade, effective 28 May 1990.

Documents in the applicant’s OSR indicate the following:

The special order awarding the AAM (Basic) was accepted for file on
1 June 1995.  However, the Citation for Award of the AAM (Basic) is
missing from the OSR.

The Citation to Accompany the Award of the AAM  1OLC  was  accepted
for file on 16 February 1995.

The Citation to Accompany the Award of the AAM  2OLC  was  accepted
for file on 25 September 1995.

The Citation to Accompany the Award of the AAM  3OLC  was  accepted
for file on 26 January 1996.

The Citation to Accompany the Award of the AAM  4OLC,  is  undated.
However, it shows the handwritten board sequence number of  103435,
which appears to indicate it was on file for  the  applicant’s  BPZ
consideration by the CY96A Major Selection Board, which convened on
4 March 1996.

The Citation to Accompany the Award of the AAM  5OLC  was  accepted
for file on 18 July 1996.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Promotion,  Evaluation,  and   Recognition   Division,
AFPC/DPPP, recommended denial.  The applicant was not selected  for
promotion by the CY97C, CY98B (6 April 1998), CY99A (8 March 1999),
and CY00A (24 January 2000) Major Selection Boards.   He  was  also
considered BPZ by the CY95A (5 June 1995) and CY96A (4 March  1996)
major boards, but was not selected.  The AAM 3OLC was filed in  the
OSR on 26 January 1996, but there is no date filed stamp on the AAM
4OLC.  Each document received  after  an  officer’s  OSR  has  been
“frozen” for a board is annotated with the sequence number assigned
for that particular officer’s  record.   This  sequence  number  is
reflected on the OSB reviewed by the respective  board.   AFPC/DPPP
noted that the sequence number reflected on the OSB is 103435.  The
number matches the hand-written sequence number  on  the  AAM  4OLC
citation.  Therefore, both citations  were  filed  in  time  to  be
reviewed not only by the CY96A BPZ board, but also  the  CY97C  IPZ
board.  In AFPC/DPPP’s opinion, they have proved the citations  for
the AAM 4th and 5th OLCs were in  evidence  for  the  CY97C  board.
Further, in spite of  the  E-mail  communication  provided  by  the
applicant, the filing of the special order in place of the citation
when the citation is  not  available  is  an  acceptable  practice.
Since the board members were aware of the  decorations,  they  were
factored into the promotion evaluation.

Moreover, the officer preselection brief  (OPB)  is  sent  to  each
eligible officer several months before a selection board.  The  OPB
contains data that will appear on the OSB  at  the  central  board.
Written instructions attached to the OPB instruct  the  officer  to
examine the brief for completeness and accuracy and take corrective
action prior to the selection board.  The instructions specifically
state, “Officers will not be  considered  by  a  Special  Selection
Board if, in exercising reasonable diligence,  the  officer  should
have discovered the error or omission in his/her records and  could
have taken timely corrective action.”  AFPC/DPPP does  not  believe
the applicant exercised “reasonable diligence”  particularly  since
he has admitted a date of discovery of May 2000, and states that he
just this year requested a copy of his record as it appeared before
the board -- after four I/APZ promotion nonselections.

The applicant provided a copy of the basic AAM  citation  with  his
application.  AFPC/DPPP stated that they furnished a  copy  of  the
basic AAM citation to the records section, AFPC/DPPBR,  to  replace
the special order currently  filed  in  his  OSR.   Their  complete
evaluation, with attachments, is at Exhibit C.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on  7  July
2000, for review and response within  30  days  (Exhibit  D).   The
applicant requested that the Board disregard the  advisory  opinion
and its recommendations to time-bar and deny  on  the  merits.   He
reiterated his earlier contentions, and states that  the  AAM  3OLC
was never in contention, but the advisory opinion makes  absolutely
no  mention  of  the  AAM  5OLC,  which  is  in  contention.    The
applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit E.

___________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In response to the applicant’s contention that the issue of the AAM
5OLC was not addressed, the AFBCMR requested a further review.  The
Chief,  Appeals  and  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  stated  that   the
applicant’s contention that the AAM 5OLC citation was  not  in  his
OSR for the CY97C major board is unsubstantiated.  DPPPA  retrieved
a copy of the citation from the applicant’s OSR and,  according  to
the file date  stamped  on  the  citation,  it  was  filed  in  the
applicant’s OSR on 18 July 1996.  Therefore, the  citation  was  on
file and  reviewed  by  the  CY97C  Major  Selection  Board,  which
convened on 16 June 1997.  AFPC/DPPPA’s complete  evaluation,  with
attachment, is at Exhibit F.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy  of  the  evaluation  was  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on
27 October  2000,  for  review  and   response   within   30   days
(Exhibit G).  The applicant requested that the Board disregard  the
advisory opinion and its recommendation and grant him an SSB, since
the fundamental injustice is unaffected.  The applicant’s  complete
response is at Exhibit H.

___________________________________________________________________

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.

    a.  While it is true that the  applicant's  record  before  the
CY97C Major Selection Board did not include the basic citation  for
award of the Aerial Achievement Medal (AAM), the Board members were
aware of the decoration because  the  special  order  awarding  the
basic AAM was included in the record.  Since  the  filing  of  this
application, a copy of the basic AAM citation has been furnished to
the records section to replace the special order filed in his OSR.

    b.  We noted the applicant’s contention that the AAM  4OLC  was
missing from his record when it was considered by the  CY97C  Major
Selection  Board.   Since  the  citation  was  on  file   for   the
applicant’s below-the-promotion-zone  consideration  by  the  CY96A
(Major  Selection  Board,  which  convened  on  4 March  1996,   as
evidenced by the promotion sequence number on the citation,  it  is
reasonable to assume that it was in his OSR when  the  CY97C  Major
Selection Board convened on 16 June 1997.  Even though it  was  not
listed on the OSB reviewed by the board,  the  Board  members  were
knowledgeable of the award.

    c.  With respect to  his  contention  that  the  AAM  5OLC  was
missing from his record when it was considered by the  CY97C  Major
Selection Board, while it too was not listed on the OSB reviewed by
the board, the Citation to Accompany the Award of the AAM 5OLC  was
accepted for file on 18 July 1996.  Therefore,  the  board  members
were aware that the applicant had received 5 oak leaf  clusters  to
the basic award.  We noted that the AAM 5OLC was not listed on  the
preselection brief provided by the applicant.  In the  exercise  of
reasonable diligence, this error should have  been  discovered  and
corrected prior to the selection board.

4.  After reviewing  the  evidence  of  record,  the  Board  is  in
agreement with the comments of the Air Force evaluators that, since
the selection board members were aware that the applicant had  been
awarded six AAMs; i.e., the basic AAM with 5OLCs,  the  applicant’s
opportunity for promotion was not prejudiced by the absence of  the
basic citation from the selection record or the absence of the  AAM
5OLC from the selection brief.  Therefore, consideration by an  SSB
is not warranted.

5.  The documentation provided with this  case  was  sufficient  to
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved  and  a
personal appearance,  with  or  without  counsel,  would  not  have
materially added to that understanding.  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 13 December  2000,  under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Chair
                 Ms. Marcia Bachman, Member
                 Mr. Daniel F. Wenker, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 31 May 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 23 June 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 7 Jul 00.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 2 Aug 00.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 17 Oct 00, w/atch.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 27 Oct 00.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, Applicant, dated 20 Nov 00.




                                   BARBARA A. WESTGATE
                                   Chair