RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  98-03562
            INDEX CODE:  100.00, 111.01,
                              131.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.    His duty history on his Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB)  should
read as follows:

      a.    3 Jan 94 – Duty Air Force Specialty Code (DAFSC)  “11F3Y;”
Duty Title “F-15 MSIP FOT&E Flight Test Director;” and  Command  Level
“Center.”

      b.    1 Jul 95 – DAFSC “11F3F;”  Duty  Title  “F-15  MSIP  FOT&E
Program Manager;” and Command Level “Center.”

      c.    2 Oct 96 – DAFSC “11F3F;” Duty  title  “F-15  MSIP,  FOT&E
Program Manager;” and Command Level “Wing/Base” (W/B).  (NOTE:   There
is no entry on the OSB for 2 Oct 96).

2.    Although not specifically stated, it appears applicant  is  also
requesting correction of the DAFSC on the Officer Performance  Reports
(OPRs) for the periods closing 31 Dec 94, 31 Dec 95, and 12 Aug 96.

3.    He be considered  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant
colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB)  for  the  CY98B  (1 Jun  98)
Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was assigned to the United States Air Warfare Center (USAFAWC) with
the  understanding that it was equivalent  to  a  Numbered  Air  Force
staff job.  The command level was Center from 3 Jan 94 – 1 Jul 95.  It
changed to W/B for unknown reasons.  He has since discovered that  the
AFSC should also be  changed  to  reflect  a  higher  level  of  staff
position to 11F4F.  Access to Special Access Required  (SAR)  programs
is only granted to highly  qualified,  hand  picked,  individuals  and
requires special approval.  Disclosure of the  nature  or  content  of
these programs is strictly  controlled  and  limited  to  specifically
authorized individuals.  Inclusion of covert SAR  program  information
(to include the  name  of  the  individual  program  or  programs)  is
prohibited on performance reports and promotion recommendations.  This
directly affected his Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  for  the
CY98B Lieutenant Colonel Line board as well as his OPRs closing 31 Dec
94,  31 Dec  95,  and  12 Aug  96.   He  was  unable  to  discuss  his
involvement in these programs with anyone in his chain of  command  at
the time of the PRF due to the rules and regulations  surrounding  SAR
programs.  They have since changed; therefore, he is able  to  address
this through these unclassified channels.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military  Service  Date  (TAFMSD)
was 5 Oct 82.

Applicant’s Officer Effectiveness Report (OER)/OPR profile since  1985
follows:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

              25 Apr 85                   1-1-1
              25 Apr 86                   1-1-1
              25 Apr 87                   1-1-1
               2 Oct 87        Education/Training Report (TR)
               2 Oct 88               Meets Standards
              21 Apr 89                Education/TR
               2 Oct 89               Meets Standards
              28 Jun 90               Meets Standards
              29 Jul 91               Meets Standards
              11 May 92               Meets Standards
              11 Feb 93               Meets Standards
              31 Dec 93               Meets Standards
            * 31 Dec 94               Meets Standards
            * 31 Dec 95               Meets Standards
            * 12 Aug 96               Meets Standards
              28 Aug 97               Meets Standards
              28 Aug 98               Meets Standards
              17 Jun 99               Meets Standards
               1 Dec 99               Meets Standards

     *  Contested reports.

The applicant’s OSB for the CY98B Lieutenant  Colonel  Board  for  the
period 3 Jan 94 reflected “11F3Y” under DAFSC,  “F15  MSIP  FOT&E  Flt
Test Dir” under duty title,  and  “Center”  under  the  Command  Level
section.  The duty entry of 1 Jul 95 reflected “11F3F” under DAFSC, “F-
15 MSIP FOT&E Flight Test Dir”  under  duty  title,  and  “W/B”  under
Command Level.  The duty entry of 1 Jan  96  reflected  “11F3F”  under
DAFSC, “F-15 MSIP FOT&E Program Manager” under duty title,  and  “W/B”
under Command Level.

The Air Force indicated that,  currently,  the  applicant’s  Personnel
Data System (PDS) records show the same information that is  reflected
on the OSB.

The OPR closing 31 Dec 94 shows applicant’s DAFSC of “11F3Y” and  duty
title of “F-15 MSIP FOT&E Flight Test Director.”

The OPR closing 31 Dec 95 shows his DAFSC of “11F3F” and duty title of
“F-15 MSIP FOT&E Program Manager.”  However, this OPR showing “Program
Manager” is the one that met the CY98B selection board but  this  duty
title was not on the OSB.  The OSB showed  the  correct  duty  command
level and DAFSC for the 1 Jul 95 entry but an  incorrect  duty  title.
AFPC/DPAPS1 denied the applicant’s requests for DAFSC and duty command
level change but made the duty title change.

The OPR closing 12 Aug 96 shows his DAFSC of “11F3F” and duty title of
“F-15 MSIP FOT&E Program Manager.”

AFPC/DPAPS1 indicated that in viewing  the  applicant’s  duty  history
versus his source documents, they noted many other errors on the  OSB.
Corrections were made to applicant’s duty history as follows:

     1. Added duty entry of  830917  for  T-38  Lead-in  training  at
        Holloman AFB, New Mexico, documented  on  AF  Form  475  from
        17 Sep 83 – 13 Dec 83.

     2. Added duty entry of 831214 for Operational Training Course at
        Luke AFB, Arizona, documented on AF Form 475 from 14 Dec 83 –
        25 Apr 84.

     3. Backdated F-15 Aircraft  Commander  duty  at  Elmendorf  AFB,
        Alaska,  from  840607  to  the  day  after  graduation   from
        Operational Training Course – 840426.

     4. Changed the 860101 duty of  “Chief  of  Ground  Training”  to
        after the closeout of the 26 Apr 85 –  25 Apr  86  OPR  since
        this OPR indicates a duty title of “F-15 Aircraft Commander.”
         If the “Chief of Ground Training” duty  title  had  been  in
        effect on 860101, the OPR should have closed  out  with  this
        duty title.  Because the OPR is the source document, the date
        was changed to 860426 as an interim duty title for  the  next
        OPR.  The OPR closing 25 Apr 86 mentions his duties as  chief
        of ground training; however, the top line duty title is  F-15
        Aircraft Commander and that is what is considered  the  valid
        duty title for input into the PDS.

     5.  Backdated  the  PIT  student  entry  of  870612  to  870426,
        consistent with the AF Form 475 of 26 Apr 87 – 2 Oct 98.

     6. Changed duty entry date for Flight Training  Instructor  from
        871002 to 871003 to be consistent with the start date of  the
        3 Oct 87 – 2 Oct 88 OPR.

     7. Changed duty entry 890307 to show SOS in residence at Maxwell
        AFB, Alabama, MAJCOM to AU, and unit as SOS.

     8. Backdated duty entry of 890601 to 890422 as Chief, T-37 Stan-
        Eval to be consistent with the day after graduation from SOS.

     9. Deleted duty entry of 911202 as a duplicate of 911001 and  to
        make room for valid additions to the  record  of  830917  and
        831214, and to make room for  future  assignments  since  the
        record allows only 24 duty entry occurrences.

    10. Changed 920601 to “F-15 Flight  Commander,”  a  more  elegant
        entry.

      11.   Deleted duty entry of 921101 as a duplicate of 920601.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the  CY98B  Lieutenant  Colonel  Board  which
convened on 1 Jun 98.

A similar application was  submitted  under  AFI  36-2401,  Correcting
Officer and Enlisted  Evaluation  Reports.   The  applicant  requested
correction of his duty title on his 31 Dec 95 OPR.  He did not request
correction of his DAFSC at that time even though it was  addressed  in
his supporting documentation.  On  1 Dec  98,  the  Evaluation  Report
Appeal Board (ERAB) approved the change to the duty title but did  not
grant promotion reconsideration  as  they  did  not  feel  the  change
warranted another consideration.

On 31 Dec 99, the applicant was separated from the Air  Force  in  the
grade of major, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR) of 1 Aug 94.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Reports  &  Queries  Section,  AFPC/DPAPS1,  reviewed  this
application and indicated that the reviewer for the OPR closing 31 Dec
94 signed as Commander of the USAF Air Warfare Center so  “Center”  is
the correct duty command level for this duty entry.  The DAFSC and the
duty title on the OPR also match the Officer Preselection Brief  (OPB)
and what is currently in the applicant’s PDS record.  The reviewer for
the OPR closing 31 Dec 95 was  Commander  of  the  53rd  Wing  so  the
correct duty command level for this time period  was  W/B.   This  OPR
clearly shows that the duty title was incorrect on  the  OPB  for  the
950701 entry; therefore, DPAPS1 changed the duty title for this  entry
in accordance with the 1 Dec 98 Headquarters  AFPC/DPPP  letter.   The
OPR closing 12 Aug 96 was reviewed by the 53rd  Wing  Commander.   The
duty command level as shown on the OSB is correct for the  duty  entry
of 960101 – W/B.  The DAFSC and the duty title are also  in  agreement
with the source document OPR and, since DPAPS1 changed  the  entry  of
950701 to reflect  “Program  Manager,”  the  960101  entry  becomes  a
duplicate duty entry so they have deleted it.  The  duty  history  now
reflects that the applicant was “Program Manager” from 950701 until he
was reassigned to  Sheppard  AFB,  Texas,  for  his  Instructor  Pilot
training on 960905.

Because DPAPS1 cannot determine whether or not the source document  is
correct, but can only make certain the  source  document  matches  the
PDS,  they  defer  to  AFPC/DPPP  for  further  review  and  for   SSB
consideration.

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

The Chief, Appeals  &  SSB  Branch,  AFPC/DPPPA,  also  reviewed  this
application and indicated that DPAPS1 corrected the 3 Jan 94 entry  to
reflect the  corrected  duty  title  in  accordance  with  the  ERAB’s
decision.  However, they did not concur  that  the  DAFSC  or  command
level should be corrected.  DPPPA agrees.  DPAPS1 also “scrubbed”  the
applicant’s record and noted several minor discrepancies and made  the
appropriate changes in the PDS – none of which DPPPA would be  willing
to grant promotion reconsideration  as  this  information  is  readily
available in the applicant’s officer selection record (OSR).

In researching applicant’s request, DPPPA retrieved the OSBs that were
reviewed by the CY96C (8 Jul 96)  and  CY97C  (21 Jul  97)  below-the-
promotion zone (BPZ) lieutenant colonel boards.  They noted both  were
identical to that of the CY98B OSB in that they included the DAFSC  of
11F3Y and 11F3F (as opposed to 11F4F as applicant is  now  requesting)
and a command level of W/B on the 1 Jul 95 and 1 Jan 96 entries.   The
applicant contends he attempted prior to the CY98B board  to  get  the
information corrected and  a  technician  at  his  servicing  military
personnel flight (MPF) supports his claim.  DPPPA states that the  OPB
is sent to each eligible officer several months prior to  a  selection
board and the OPB contains data that will appear on  the  OSB  at  the
central board.  Written instructions attached 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  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."  The applicant was first  made  aware
of the alleged errors approximately mid-Mar 96 (prior to his first BPZ
consideration); however, it appears that he waited until his first in-
the-promotion zone (IPZ) consideration to take any type of  corrective
action.  He has not demonstrated “reasonable diligence.”

While  the  applicant  provided  a  statement  of  support  from   the
additional rater of the OPR  closing  31 Dec  95  who  states,  “…(the
applicant’s) Air Force Specialty Code…was downgraded from 11F4F (above
the wing/base level) to 11F3F  (wing/base  level).   The  Air  Warfare
Center was not redesignated as the 53rd WG until Oct 95.  My  attempts
to correct AFSC levels for (the applicant) and all other  officers  in
the squadron were unsuccessful,” he  does  not  explain  exactly  what
“attempts” he  made  to  correct  the  DAFSCs  or  whether  they  were
authorized on the unit manning document (UMD).

The applicant included a letter of support from the  reviewer  of  the
31 Dec 95 OPR supporting his appeal efforts.   However,  in  order  to
prove the DAFSC on the OPRs, PRF, and assignment history is erroneous,
the applicant must provide a copy of  the  unit  personnel  management
roster (UPMR).  The UPMR lists each duty position number  in  a  unit,
the corresponding AFSC,  and  the  name  of  the  person  holding  the
position (the duty positions on  the  UPMR  match  the  duty  position
numbers on the UMD).  DAFSCs on OPRs will always  mirror  the  ratee’s
position on the UPMR regardless of the level  of  command  or  primary
AFSC held by the ratee.  None of the evaluators  identify  which  duty
position number the applicant  held  during  the  contested  reporting
period.  Further, DPPPA retrieved information  from  the  PDS  on  the
applicant’s evaluators at the time and note that they,  too,  had  the
exact same DAFSC of 11F3Y or 11F3F as well as the same  command  level
as the applicant during that time period.  Therefore, it  appears  the
applicant’s  DAFSC  and  commander  level  were  correct  during   the
contested time frame.  Until a copy of the UMD and UPMR  are  provided
in support of this appeal showing the applicant’s DAFSC was incorrect,
then DPPPA must conclude the DAFSC on the contested OPRs  and  in  the
assignment history are correct.  If the applicant is able  to  provide
these documents and it is verified the DAFSC and command level were in
error, then DPPPA would not object to correcting the CY98B PRF, 31 Dec
94, 31 Dec 95, and 12 Aug 96 OPRs to reflect the correct  information.
They would not, however, support  promotion  reconsideration  on  this
issue as they believe  the  corrections  would  be  administrative  in
nature and do not warrant a second promotion consideration.  Based  on
the evidence provided, they recommend denial.

A complete copy of their evaluation, with attachments, is attached  at
Exhibit D.

________________________________________________________________
APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluations and  indicated  that  the
opinions expressed  by  AFPC/DPPA  and  AFPC/DPAPS1  contain  numerous
errors  or  misunderstandings  throughout  the  memorandums   He   has
attempted, in  attachments  1  and  2  to  clarify  his  position  and
highlight the errors.  This entire process  began  because  xxxxxx  at
Headquarters AFPC/DPPPOO, stated that he had  not  performed  a  staff
job.  This was after xxxxx reviewed applicant’s records for one and  a
half hours.  Due to the error in his records, his  staff  job  is  not
evident on his duty title history;  therefore,  he  is  concerned  the
promotion board may have missed it also.  He requests that  the  Board
change the command level  to  “Center”  on  the  1 Jul  95  entry  and
reconsider his application for an SSB.

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 timely filed.

3.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough review
of the  evidence  of  record,  the  applicant’s  submission,  and  the
classified documentation provided,  we  are  not  persuaded  that  the
applicant  has  been  the  victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   The
classified  information  presented  does  not   add   any   additional
information or merit to his contentions.  The Air Force has  indicated
that the  corrections  made  to  the  applicant’s  duty  history  were
administrative in nature and we are not persuaded  that  these  errors
warrant SSB consideration.  We also  note  that  the  selection  board
members had access to the correct data when they reviewed his  record.
Therefore, we are compelled  to  conclude  that  these  administrative
errors were harmless.  As the Air Force has indicated, central  boards
evaluate the entire officer record and without clear-cut  evidence  to
the contrary, it is highly unlikely these errors  were  the  cause  of
applicant’s nonselection.  In  view  of  the  foregoing,  we  find  no
compelling basis to recommend favorable action on 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 28 September 2000, under the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                   Mr. Robert Zook, Panel Chair
                   Mrs. Barbara A. Westgate, Member
                   Ms. Olga M. Crerar, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Dec 98, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPS1, dated 6 Jan 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 22 Jan 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 8 Feb 99.
     Exhibit F.  Letter fr applicant, dated 25 Feb 99, w/atchs.




                                   ROBERT ZOOK
                                   Panel Chair