RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER: 00-03046
            INDEX CODE:  131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The duty history portion of his Officer Selection Brief (OSB) for  the
CY00A (24 January 2000) major board  reflect  the  following  changes:
the 23 June 1991 entry should reflect an  entry  of  “Navigator”  vice
“Nacigator”; the 14 December 1991 and 1 June 1992 entries  which  read
“data masked” should be deleted; and the 6 October 1997 and 20 October
1998 duty Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC) should  reflect  “Evaluator
and Instructor Navigator.”  He also requests promotion reconsideration
by the CY00A board.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The assignment history section on his OSB for the  CY00A  Major  Board
had numerous errors.  He made several attempts prior to the  board  to
correct the errors.  Due  to  a  delay  in  his  permanent  change  of
assignment (PCA) from the 909th ARS to the 18th OSS the PC-III  system
would not accept any updates.  It was not until he received copies  of
his records that he became aware that his assignment history was still
incorrect.  He feels that the incorrect information on his OSB  had  a
detrimental effect on his chance for promotion.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a statement from  the
NCOIC, Commander Support Staff, dated 6 November 2000.

Applicant’s complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force the  grade
of Captain

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of major by the CY00A and CY00B Major Selection Boards, which convened
on 24 January 2000 and 18 September 2000, respectively.

According to HQ AFPC/DPPPA the typographical error to the  applicant’s
duty title “Nacigator” has been corrected in the personnel data system
(PDS) to read “Navigator.”

OPR profile since 1993 follows:

           PERIOD ENDING          EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL

                  5 Jul 93              Meets Standards (MS)
                  5 Jul 94              (MS)
                  5 Jul 95              (MS)
                 23 Feb 96              Training Report (TR)
                  5 Jul 96              (MS)
                  5 Jul 97              (MS)
                 30 Jun 98              (MS)
            #    30 Jun 99              (MS)
            ##   20 Jun 00              (MS)

#Top Report for the CY00A Board
## Top Report for the CY00B Board

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Appeals and SSB Branch, Directorate  of  Personnel  Program
Management, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application and states that  the
applicant must bear some of the responsibility in the  fact  that  the
PDS did not reflect the appropriate information on  the  duty  history
entries that he is challenging.  An officer’s records are his  or  her
responsibility,  and  each  officer  is  responsible  to  ensure  that
record’s accuracy at all times - not just prior to a promotion  board.
It was the applicant’s responsibility to  ensure  the  PDS  accurately
reflected his duty history since the day he entered active  duty.   If
changes/corrections  have  been  made  along  the  way,  it  was   his
responsibility to ensure they were updated  properly.   The  applicant
has not demonstrated “reasonable diligence” in the maintenance of  his
records.  While it may be  argued  that  the  contested  duty  history
entries on his P0400B (sic) [the board being discussed here should  be
CY00A vice CY00B] OSB 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,  OPRs,
officer  effectiveness   reports,   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.  They are not convinced the administrative discrepancies on
the OSB contributed to the  applicant’s  nonselection  -  particularly
when  his  corresponding  evaluation  reports  contained  the  correct
information.  Based on the evidence provided, there is  no  basis  for
promotion reconsideration.  They recommend denial.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

On 15 December 2000, a copy of the Air Force evaluation was  forwarded
to the applicant for review and response within thirty (30) days.   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.    Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice  warranting  partial
relief.  After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of  record,  we  note
the typographical error with respect to the 23 June  1991  duty  title
entry which  reflects  “Nacigator.”   Although  this  error  has  been
corrected in the Personnel Data System (PDS), at the time of the CY00A
major selection board, it was incorrect and we are persuaded that this
error should be corrected on the applicant’s Officer  Selection  Brief
(OSB) for the CY00A board.  In addition, the Air Force  has  indicated
that the 6 October 1997 and 20 October 1998 Duty Air  Force  Specialty
Codes duty history entry prefixes were not properly reflected  on  the
CY00A OSB.  Therefore, we are persuaded that these prefixes should  be
corrected on the OSB for the  CY00A  major  board.   While  we  cannot
determine conclusively  that  these  errors  were  the  cause  of  the
applicant’s nonselection for promotion to the grade of  major,  we  do
believe they served to deprive him of full and fair consideration  for
promotion by the selection board in question.  Therefore, we recommend
that his record be corrected to the extent indicated below and that he
be provided Special Selection Board consideration.

4.    Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate
the existence of either an error or  an  injustice  warranting  relief
regarding the “data masked” entries on the OSB for  the  CY00A  board.
The applicant  states  that  these  two  entries  should  be  deleted.
However, we do not  find  his  uncorroborated  assertion,  in  and  by
itself, sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided  by
the Air Force.  The applicant has provided insufficient  support  that
this information was in error or  was  detrimental  to  his  promotion
opportunity.  Further, although  we  cannot  determine  based  on  the
evidence presented, we must presume that the nature of the applicant’s
job was classified and therefore, the information was required  to  be
masked on the OSB.  While there does not appear to be any  information
masked on the Officer Performance Report covering  this  time  period,
presumably during those two specific time periods  the  applicant  was
involved in operations wherein the location and organization  required
the data to  be  masked.   In  view  of  the  foregoing,  we  find  no
compelling basis upon which to grant the requested relief.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT:

The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the  Air  Force
relating to APPLICANT, be corrected to show that the Officer Selection
Brief prepared for the Calendar Year 2000A Major Board was amended  as
follows:

      a.    The 23 June  1991  Duty  Title  be  corrected  to  reflect
“Navigator, KC-135.”

      b.    The 6 October 1997 entry should reflect a Duty  Air  Force
Specialty Code of “Q12T3A.”

      c.    The 20 October 1998 entry should reflect a Duty Air  Force
Specialty Code of “K12T3A” and a duty title “AST  FLT  CC,  ARCRW  SCH
IN/NAV KC135R.

It is further recommended that he be considered for promotion  to  the
grade of major by a Special Selection  Board  for  the  Calendar  Year
2000A Central Major Board and for any subsequent boards in  which  the
above referenced corrections were a matter of record.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 22 February 2000, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

            Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
            Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member
            Ms. Barbara J. White-Olson, Member

All members  voted  to  correct  the  records,  as  recommended.   The
following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 7 Nov 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 4 Dec 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Dec 00.




                 GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                 Panel Chair


AFBCMR 00-03046





MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHIEF OF STAFF

      Having received and considered the recommendation of the Air
Force Board for Correction of Military Records and under the authority
of Section 1552, Title 10, United States Code (70A Stat 116), it is
directed that:

            The pertinent military records of the  Department  of  the
Air Force relating to    , be  corrected  to  show  that  the  Officer
Selection Brief prepared for the Calendar Year 2000A Major  Board  was
amended as follows:

                 a.    The 23 June 1991 Duty  Title  be  corrected  to
reflect “Navigator, KC-135.”

                 b.    The 6 October 1997 entry should reflect a  Duty
Air Force Specialty Code of “Q12T3A.”

            c.   The 20 October 1998 entry should reflect a  Duty  Air
Force Specialty Code of “K12T3A” and a duty title “AST FLT  CC,  ARCRW
SCH IN/NAV KC135R.

      It is further directed that he be considered  for  promotion  to
the grade of major by a Special Selection Board for the Calendar  Year
2000A Central Major Board and for any subsequent boards in  which  the
above referenced corrections were a matter of record.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency