RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-01232
            INDEX CODE:  107.00; 131.01

            COUNSEL:  None

            HEARING DESIRED:  No

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be given Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  consideration  for  the
Calendar Year 1998C (1 Dec 98) Central Colonel Board  with  inclusion
of the citation accompanying award of the Defense Meritorious Service
Medal (DMSM) (Basic) for the  period  16 Aug  96  to  15 Jul  98  and
removal of  the  Board  Discrepancy  Report  (which  has  since  been
removed).

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The Board Discrepancy Report would not be in his records if the local
Military Personnel Flight (MPF) had followed  established  procedures
of sending his updates to the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) after
his visits in Sep and Oct 98.  The MPF did  not  notify  him  of  the
20 Nov 98 memo about his record discrepancy; otherwise, he would have
corrected  it  on  the  spot.   He  feels  his  below-the-zone  (BTZ)
opportunity (with  a  Definitely  Promote  (DP)  recommendation)  was
negatively biased with the Discrepancy Report on top of his records.

In support of his appeal, the  applicant  submitted  a  copy  of  his
Officer Selection Brief (OSB), a board discrepancy report  which  was
on file for the CY98C board, and a letter  from  the  Superintendent,
Customer Assistance.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on extended  active  duty  in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel, effective, and with a date of rank (DOR)
of 1 Oct 94.

Applicant’s Officer Performance Reports (OPRs) from 1989  to  present
reflect “Meets Standards” on all performance factors.

At the time the applicant was considered for promotion to  the  grade
of colonel by the CY98C board, the DMSM was reflected on his OSB  but
the citation was missing from his officer selection record (OSR).

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to the  grade
of colonel by the CY98C board (below-the-promotion-zone (BPZ)).

The Superintendent, Customer Assistance, 42nd MSS/DPMP, indicated  in
a letter, dated 29 Apr 99, that the applicant’s promotion  folder  is
now correct.  The DMSM citation is  in  his  Unit  Personnel  Records
Group (UPRG) and  updated  in  the  personnel  data  system  and  the
discrepancy report has been removed.

Applicant was considered and selected for promotion to the  grade  of
colonel by the CY99A (2 Aug 99) Colonel Board.

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Promotion, Evaluation & Recognition  Division,  AFPC/DPPP,
reviewed  this  application  and  indicated  that  board  discrepancy
reports are forwarded to the MPFs prior to the convening  date  of  a
board.  The reports outline what is missing from an officer’s OSR and
request that the MPF notify the member and provide copies to AFPC for
filing in the OSR prior to the board convening date.  If the document
is not received prior to the board, a discrepancy report is placed in
the record to make the board members aware that the document  exists.
The central selection board members are briefed that the  discrepancy
reports are placeholders for missing documents.

DPPP further states that although the citation was missing  from  the
OSR, the award was reflected on his OSB.  The  purpose  of  having  a
citation included in the record is not to  allow  board  members  the
opportunity to peruse the comments thereon, although they may  do  so
if they are so inclined.  Rather, the purpose is to make  them  aware
of the level of the decorations.  In this regard, DPPP is  guided  by
AFI 36-2608, Table A2.1, Item 326.  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 the DMSM (Basic) citation was not on file in the
OSR when the board convened, they knew of its existence as  evidenced
by  the  entry  on  the  OSB;  therefore,  the  board  members   were
knowledgeable the decoration was awarded to the  applicant  which  is
the ultimate purpose of including them  in  the  promotion  selection
process.  Based on the evidence provided, DPPP recommends  denial  of
the application.

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

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant reviewed the Air Force evaluation and stated that the basis
of his argument for an SSB consideration is the fact that he took all
available actions to ensure his promotion record was  complete  prior
to the CY98C Central Colonel Board.  The discrepancy report would not
be in his promotion record had the Maxwell AFB  MPF  performed  their
job.  On two occasions, Sep 98 and Oct 98, he  went  to  the  MPF  to
update his records.  The final opportunity to update his records came
when AFPC notified the Maxwell AFB MPF about the discrepancy  in  his
promotion record and they (Maxwell AFB MPF) did not  take  action  to
correct the situation nor did they notify him of the  discrepancy  so
he could correct the problem prior to the board.  The competition for
BTZ  selection  is  extremely  high  and  any  distracters  can  mean
nonselection.  Therefore, he still  feels  his  BTZ  opportunity  was
negatively biased with the discrepancy report in his promotion record
due to the Maxwell AFB MPF failing to perform their duties.

Applicant’s  complete  response,  with  attachment,  is  attached  at
Exhibit E.

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.
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.   No  evidence  has  been
presented which would lead us to believe that  either  the  contested
Discrepancy Report or the omission of the citation to  accompany  the
DMSM caused his records to be so inaccurate or  misleading  that  the
members of the duly constituted selection board were  precluded  from
rendering a  reasonable  decision  concerning  his  promotability  in
comparison to his peers.  We therefore agree with the  recommendation
of the Air Force and adopt the rationale expressed as the  basis  for
our decision that the missing citation from his record was a harmless
error.  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 31 May 2000, under the provisions of  Air  Force
Instruction 36-2603:

                  Mr. David W. Mulgrew, Panel Chair
                  Mr. Grover L. Dunn, Member
                  Mr. William E. Edwards, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 May 99, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPP, dated 19 Jul 99.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, AFBCMR, dated 9 Aug 99.
     Exhibit E.  Letter fr applicant, dated 13 Aug 99, w/atch.




                                   DAVID W. MULGREW
                                   Panel Chair