RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01112
                                     INDEX CODE:  100.00, 111.01,
                                     131.00

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be provided promotion reconsideration by the Calendar Year  1998C
(CY98C) (1 Dec 98) Central Colonel Board  with  corrections  to  his
officer selection brief (OSB) and his Officer  Effectiveness  Report
(OER) rendered for the period 13 May 83 through 12 May 84.

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Duty Air Force Specialty Codes (DAFSCs) on his OSB  should  read
as follows:

      31 Jan 84 – His DAFSC as reads “1555C” and duty title as reads
“Weapon Systems Officer F-4E” should read “K155C” Instructor Weapons
Systems Officer.”

      13 May 84 – His DAFSC as reads “1555C”  should  read  “M1555C”
based on the OER, dated 13 May 84 through 7 Jan 85.

      9 Jul 98 – His DAFSC as reads  “12F4U”  should  read  “C12F4U”
based on the attached AF Form  35  (Request  and  Authorization  for
Assumption of/Appointment to Command), effective 9 Jul 98 and  based
on his being assigned to the unit commander’s billet.

His OER closing 12 May 84 has the wrong duty title/DAFSC.  It should
have reflected that he was an  Instructor  Weapons  System  Officer-
K1555C.

He states that although he and other members of the Xrd Air  Support
Operations Group (ASOG) made numerous attempts to correct  his  duty
title and AFSC to the commander, he did not receive a  copy  of  the
OSB until after the board met (14 Jan 99).

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant’s Total Active Federal Military Service Date  (TAFSMD)
is 19 May 74.  He is currently serving on extended  active  duty  in
the grade of lieutenant colonel, effective, and with a date of  rank
(DOR) of 1 Dec 93.

Applicant’s OER/Officer Performance Report (OPR) profile since  1983
reflects the following:

            PERIOD ENDING          OVERALL EVALUATION

             28 Mar 83                   1-1-1
             12 May 83        Education/Training Report (TR)
           * 12 May 84                   1-1-1
              7 Jan 85                   1-1-1
             23 Aug 85                   1-1-1
             15 May 86                   1-1-1
             14 Nov 86                   1-1-1
             14 Nov 87                   1-1-1
             14 Nov 88               Meets Standards
             30 Jun 89               Meets Standards
             30 May 90                Education/TR
             30 May 91               Meets Standards
             30 May 92               Meets Standards
              1 Mar 93               Meets Standards
              1 Oct 93               Meets Standards
              1 Oct 94               Meets Standards
              3 Sep 95               Meets Standards
             16 Jul 96               Meets Standards
              6 Mar 97               Meets Standards
              4 Jan 98               Meets Standards
              8 Jul 98               Meets Standards
              4 May 99               Meets Standards

     * Contested report.

Applicant has two  nonselections  for  promotion  to  the  grade  of
colonel by the CY98C and CY99A (2 Aug 99) Central Colonel Boards.

The Air Force indicated the applicant’s 13 May  84  DAFSC  as  reads
“1555C” has been changed in the Personnel Data System (PDS) to  read
“M1555C”  and  has  been  verified  by  the  applicant’s  Assignment
Officer.

Applicant’s 9 Jul 98 DAFSC as reads “12F4U” has been changed in  the
PDS to read “C12F4U”  and  has  been  verified  by  the  applicant’s
Assignment Officer.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Chief,  Assignment  Information  Systems  Branch,   AFPC/DPAPS,
reviewed  this  application  and  indicated  that,  in   regard   to
applicant’s contentions that his DAFSC as  reads  “1555C”  and  duty
title as reads “Weapon Systems Officer F-4E”  should  read  “K1555C,
Instructor Weapons Systems Officer,” based on the OER closing 12 May
84,  they  cannot  concur  with  the  applicant  until  the  OER  is
successfully appealed to show the “K1555C, Instructor Weapons System
Officer” information.

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

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation & Recognition Division,  AFPC/DPPP,
also reviewed this application and indicated that the applicant  has
waited 15 years to file and took no  action  on  the  claims  before
that.   He  has  inexcusably  delayed  his  appeal   (providing   no
explanation) and, as a result, the Air Force no longer has documents
on  file,  memories  fade,  and  this  complicates  the  ability  to
determine the merits of his  position.   In  short,  the  Air  Force
asserts that the applicant’s unreasonable delay regarding  a  matter
now dating back 15 years has  greatly  complicated  its  ability  to
determine the merits  of  the  applicant’s  position.   Further,  he
provided nothing convincing that the errors  were  not  discoverable
until Jan 99 nor has he offered a concrete  explanation  for  filing
late.

DPPP states that AFPC/DPAPS addressed the  duty  history  issues  in
their  advisory  and  concurred  with  the  applicant’s  contentions
regarding the 9 Jul 98 and 13 May 84 duty history entries  and  made
the necessary changes in the PDS.  However,  DPAPS  did  not  concur
with the applicant’s request regarding his 31 Jan  84  duty  history
entry and will not be able to make any changes  “until  the  OER  is
successfully appealed…”  DPPP accepts their findings  and  adds  the
following for  the  Board’s  consideration.   They  do  not  support
promotion  reconsideration  on  the  changes  made  to  the  PDS  by
AFPC/DPAPS as DPPP considers the changes administrative and harmless
in nature.

In researching the applicant’s contentions, DPPP confirmed  the  two
1984 duty history entries have been reflected in the PDS exactly  as
they are now since  the  CY86B  (1 Dec  86)  major  board  when  the
applicant was first considered below-the-promotion zone (BPZ).  This
would include all OSBs prepared for his major and lieutenant colonel
boards-of which, DPPP adds, boards that selected him  for  promotion
to those  grades.   In  addition,  the  applicant  would  have  also
received officer preselection briefs (OPBs) for each of these boards
for which he was considered-up to  and  including  the  most  recent
CY98C board.  The OPB is  sent  to  each  eligible  officer  several
months prior to a selection board.  The OPB contains data that  will
appear on the  OSB  at  the  central  board.   Written  instructions
attached to 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”.  Given the fact that this information  has  been
on the applicant’s duty history since, at least, 1986, it is evident
that he has not exercised reasonable diligence.  As such, DPPP  does
not support promotion reconsideration.
In regard to the applicant’s contentions that  the  DAFSC  and  duty
title on the contested 12 May 84 OER are in error,  statements  from
the evaluators during the contested period are absent.  In order  to
successfully challenge the validity of an evaluation report,  it  is
important to hear from the evaluators—not necessarily  for  support,
but at least for clarification/explanation and the applicant has not
provided  any  such  documentation.   Without   benefit   of   these
statements, DPPP can only conclude the OER is accurate  as  written.
If  its  content  was  going  to  handicap  the  applicant’s  future
promotions, then it would have happened, at the very least, when  he
was considered and selected  for  the  grade  of  major  since  this
document was closer to the top of his record when he was  considered
and selected by the CY87 (28 Sep 87) major selection board.

DPPP further states that while it may be argued that  the  contested
OER and  duty  history  entries  were  factors  in  the  applicant’s
nonselection, there  is  no  clear  evidence  that  they  negatively
impacted his promotion opportunity.   Central  boards  evaluate  the
entire officer  selection  record  (OSR)  (including  the  promotion
recommendation form (PRF), OPRs, OERs, 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  (PME).   DPPP  is  not  convinced  the  contested  errors
contributed to the applicant’s nonselection and  strongly  encourage
the Board to time-bar the request for promotion  reconsideration  as
it pertains to the 1984 duty history entries and the 12 Mar 84  OER.
If, however, the Board considers the application on merit, then DPPP
recommends denial of all of the applicant’s requests.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Copies of the Air Force evaluations were forwarded to  applicant  on
9 Aug 99 for review and response.  As of this date, no response  has
been received by this office.

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.   The  Air
Force has indicated that the 13 May 84 and 9 Jul 98 DAFSCs have been
updated.  Therefore, in regard to applicant’s  request  for  further
corrections to the contested OSB and OER closing 12 May 84, after  a
thorough  review  of  the  evidence  of   record   and   applicant’s
submission, we are not persuaded that his 31 Jan 84 DAFSC  and  duty
title on his OSB or the duty title and DAFSC on  the  contested  OER
should be changed.  In this respect, as stated by the Air  Force  in
regard to the contested OER, if its content was  going  to  handicap
the applicant’s future promotions, then it would have  happened,  at
the very least, when he was considered and selected for the grade of
major since the OER was closer to the top of his record when he  was
considered and selected by the CY87 major selection board.  While it
may be argued that the contested DAFSC and duty title  were  factors
in the applicant’s nonselection, there is no clear evidence that  it
negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.  Further, 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 the incorrect  DAFSC  and  duty  title  was  the  cause  of
applicant’s nonselection.  In view of the foregoing, we  agree  with
the 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.  Therefore, 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 27 April 2000,  under  the  provisions  of  Air
Force Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
                  Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Apr 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAPS, dated 6 May 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 23 Jul 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Aug 99.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair