RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 99-00960
                 INDEX CODE 131.01
                 COUNSEL:  None

                 HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be reconsidered for Intermediate Service School (ISS) candidacy  by
Special Selection Board (SSB) for  the  Calendar  Year  1998B  (CY98B)
Major Central Selection Board  with  the  Officer  Performance  Report
(OPR) closing 3 April 1998 included in his selection folder,  and  the
CY98B Officer Selection Brief  (OSB)  reflecting  his  new  Air  Force
Specialty Code (AFSC) of “97E0,” duty  title  of  “Executive  Officer,
Director of Requirements,” effective 4 April 1998, and  award  of  the
Army Achievement Medal (AAM).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He was not selected as an ISS  candidate  because  the  administrative
omission of information from his promotion records had  a  direct  and
negative effect. In late March 1998 he was selected for a new job  and
received a change of reporting official (CRO)  OPR,  and  a  new  duty
title and AFSC as a result. As for the AAM, he was not  aware  he  was
being submitted for the award. The  decoration  was  retained  by  his
previous organization for several months and eventually  forwarded  to
him in the summer of 1998.

A copy of applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The AAM covers the period 19 June 1996 through 31  January  1997,  was
submitted for approval on 21 October 1997,  and  approved  on  6 March
1998.

The applicant was selected for promotion to the grade of major by  the
CY98B board, which convened on 6 April 1998 (his date  of  rank  (DOR)
for major is 1 May 1999). He was not selected for ISS  candidacy.  The
top OPR closed out on 30 September 1997 and reflected a duty title  of
Team Leader, Space Systems.  The latest duty title on  the  CY98B  OSB
was Chief, Acquisition Policy Team, effective 1 October 1997. The  OSB
did not reflect receipt of the AAM.

He assumed the title of Executive Officer on 4 April 1998.

The OPR in question was a CRO report and closed out on 3  April  1998.
It reflects a duty title of Chief, Acquisition Policy  Team,  and  was
signed by the rater on 8 April 1998 and by the remaining evaluators on
15 April 1998.  It was filed in the applicant’s records on 6 May 1998.


AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

[The Chief, Military Education Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPAPE,  reviewed  the
evaluation on 23 April 1999 and  originally  recommended  “Applicant’s
request should be approved based on the fact he was marred in untimely
administrative oversights. All of  the  information  could  have  been
filed in applicant’s Selection Folder in time  for  the  board  had  a
sense of  urgency  been  applied  in  the  process.”   This  copy  was
forwarded to the applicant on 28 June 1999, together with the original
11 June 1999 advisory  from  the  Chief,  Appeals  &  SSB  Branch,  HQ
AFPC/DPPPA, which recommended denial. Subsequent to  this,  DPAPE  and
DPPPA apparently “recut” their evaluations on 24  and  25  June  1999,
respectively, with both offices recommending denial. They were  resent
to the applicant on 26 July 1999.]

The Chief,  Military  Education  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPAPE,  recommended
denial because the OPR was not due to be filed until  June  1998.  The
report was not late; therefore, an SSB for ISS reconsideration is  not
warranted.

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

The Chief, Appeals & SSB Branch, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, provides her rationale
for recommending denial. In summary, since the applicant  provides  no
documentation as to what actions he took prior to the selection  board
to have his OPR, duty information and AAM  included  in  his  OSB  and
selection records, and these omissions were not due to be included per
established guidelines, reconsideration of ISS should be denied.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reiterates his earlier arguments in a rebuttal dated  23
July 1999. He also believes the Air Force’s  filing  requirements  are
administratively excessive.  The Army award, like a majority  of  non-
Air  Force  awards,  can  take  time  to  process.  He  notes  DPAPE’s
[original] recommendation for approval.

[Based  on  his  comments,  this  rebuttal  addresses   the   original
advisories forwarded to him on 28 June 1999---see above.]

Applicant’s complete response, with attachments, 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. After a thorough  review
of the evidence of record  and  applicant’s  submission,  we  are  not
persuaded the applicant should be considered for ISS by  SSB  for  the
CY98B board with the requested changes  to  his  record.   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’s 24 and 25 June 1999 evaluations.
Further, the applicant has not  demonstrated  that  these  ommissions,
which were not required to be in his records prior to the CY98B board,
were the bases for his nonselection for ISS.  We therefore agree  with
those recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and  adopt  the  rationale
expressed as the basis for our decision that the applicant has  failed
to sustain his burden that he has  suffered  either  an  error  or  an
injustice. In view of the above, and absent persuasive evidence to the
contrary, we find no compelling basis to recommend granting the relief
sought.

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 21 January 2000, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

                  Mr. Benedict A. Kausal IV, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                  Ms. Rita J. Maldonado, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Apr 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letters, HQ AFPC/DPAPE, dated 23 Apr 99 (voided)
                   and 24 Jun 99.
   Exhibit D.  Letters, HQ AFPC/DPPPA, dated 11 Jun 99 (voided)
                   and 25 Jun 99.
   Exhibit E.  Letters, AFBCMR, dated 28 Jun 99 (voided)
                   and 26 Jul 99.
   Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 23 Jul 99, w/atch.




                                   BENEDICT A. KAUSAL IV
                                   Panel Chair