RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03205
                       INDEX CODE:  111.00 & 131.00
      APPLICANT  COUNSEL:  MICHAEL F. COPLEY

      SSN        HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF)  that  was  presented  to  the
calendar year (CY) 99B board be corrected and  he  be  considered  for
promotion by a Special Selection Board (SSB).

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

When his records met the CY99 HQ Air  Force  Materiel  Command  (AFMC)
Management Level Review Board (MLRB) and the HQ  Air  Force  Personnel
Center (AFPC) Central Selection Board, his PRF was not  correct.   His
PRF did not have his  correct  mission  description,  duty  title  and
position description.  His senior rater completed his PRF based on  an
outdated Duty Qualification History Brief (DQHB).

He was stationed at a geographically  separated  unit  (GSU)  and  any
updates to the personnel data systems were the responsibility  of  the
military personnel flight (MPF).  The DQHB and  an  updated  personnel
data system (PDS) were critical tools in accomplishing his  PRF.   The
MPF had not updated his  DQHB  and  PDS  by  the  time  the  applicant
outprocessed from  his  previous  position  to  his  new  position  as
commander in Sep 99.  This resulted in his records meeting both boards
with incorrect information.

After he was notified he  was  selected  for  a  permanent  change  of
station,  on  several  occasions,  before  departing   for   his   new
assignment, he tried to  ensure  that  his  records  were  updated  to
reflect his new position in the PDS.  The personnel in the MPF assured
him that the updates would be made in a timely manner.

In Oct 99, he received a copy of  his  PRF  and  saw  the  information
regarding his new position had not been updated.  The  applicant  made
several visits and calls to the MPF and the Joint Officer  Assignments
Branch to get his record corrected.  He also, informed the MPF that he
did not receive a copy of his preselection Officer Career Brief.   The
MPF ordered another copy, but  he  never  received  it.   The  Officer
History Report he received on 3 Nov 99 showed his information  as  not
having been updated.  His information did not get updated in  the  PDS
until a short time before 18 Nov 99,  over  a  month  after  the  MLRB
convened.

On 27 Apr 00, the applicant submitted a request for Special  Selection
Board (SSB) consideration to his senior rater (Col O.).  Col O.  wrote
Lt Gen C. indicating that while he did not agree with the  applicant’s
contention regarding a material error in his PRF, he did  support  the
applicant’s request for a SSB based on the fact that the MLRB did  not
have the opportunity to review accurate information on the  applicant.
The central selection board convened on 30 Nov 99 and the  applicant’s
information had been updated on  or  about  18  Nov  99.   Lt  Gen  C.
concurred with the request for a SSB.

Applicant's complete submission is attached at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of major.

Applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the  grade
of lieutenant colonel by the CY99B and CY00A selection boards.

The applicant’s duty title as Commander was effective 16 Sep 99.   His
duty title was updated in the PDS on 15 Nov 99.  The MLRB convened  on
13-14 Oct 99 and the CY99B lieutenant colonel central selection  board
(CSB) convened on 31 Nov 99.  The Officer Selection Brief, prepared on
16 Nov 99, for the CY99B board reflected the correct duty title for 16
Sep 99.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Personnel Programs Branch, HQ  AFPC/DPPPEB,  reviewed  this
application and states the PRF writing cycle begins as  early  as  150
days prior to the CSB, based on this it is possible that the  member’s
duty title and job description was correct when his PRF  was  written.
In order for the senior raters to have  maximum  flexibility,  changes
are allowed to be submitted as close as one day prior to the convening
of the board.  An omission of an  accomplishment  or  change  in  duty
title is not considered an error if the information was  available  to
the senior rater.  In  the  applicant’s  case  the  senior  rater  had
knowledge  of  the  member’s  selection  as  commander,  and  in  fact
commented on that in the contested PRF.  The senior rater  is  not  in
support of reaccomplishing the PRF.

It is the responsibility of each  servicemember  to  ensure  that  his
records  are  correct  before  they  are   presented   for   promotion
consideration.  DPPPEB states that the member has not demonstrated  he
made a concerted effort to ensure his records, including the PRF, were
accurate prior to the CSB.  The applicant also alleged that he was not
considered for the “Old guy new guy” rule; however, the applicant  did
not  qualify  under  this  rule.   DPPPEB   recommends   denying   the
applicant’s request to correct his PRF.

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

The  Chief,  Officer  Promotion,  Appts  &  Sel  Cont.  Br.   Appeals,
Directorate of Personnel Program  Management  Branch,  HQ  AFPC/DPPPO,
reviewed this application and concurs with the findings of DPPPEB  and
does not support promotion consideration.  They recommend denying  the
applicant’s request.

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

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR STAFF EVALUATION:

Applicant’s counsel reiterates that the applicant wishes to  have  his
PRF corrected to show the correct duty title and  mission  description
and reconsideration for promotion by the promotion  board.   He  would
like for the  Board  to  consider  that  those  who  evaluate  officer
promotion records may have considered it important that the  applicant
had been promoted to such as esteemed position and possibly  may  have
awarded him the points need to  be  promoted.   When  the  applicant’s
records were presented to the boards with erroneous  information  this
put him at a disadvantage as opposed  to  other  servicemembers  whose
records  reflected  correct  information.   The  applicant’s  PRF  was
confusing  at  best,  unfairly  derogatory  at  worst.   However,  the
misleading  information  is  characterized,  the  error  needs  to  be
corrected and the applicant should either be promoted or his promotion
recommendation  should   be   reviewed   or   he   should   be   given
reconsideration by an SSB.

Applicant's response 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 and the applicant’s  submission,  the  Board
agrees with the opinions and recommendations  of  the  Air  Force  and
adopts their rationale as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim  of  an  error  or  injustice.   The
statement from the  senior  rater  and  indorsed  by  the  MLRB  Board
President is duly noted; however, we note that while these individuals
support Special Selection Board consideration, neither indicates  that
there is a material error on the contested PRF.  In fact,  the  senior
rater states that he is not convinced that the MLRB members would have
scored the applicant’s record differently if the  current  duty  title
and job description had been part of the contested  PRF.   The  senior
rater indicates that the applicant’s new position was addressed in the
promotion  recommendation  portion  of  the  PRF.   In  view  of   the
foregoing, we are not sufficiently persuaded that  the  applicant  has
established to our satisfaction that he was not provided full and fair
promotion consideration by the CY99B board or that he would have  been
selected for promotion.  Further, we note that changes to  a  member’s
record can be made as late as one day before the convening of a board;
however, we find insufficient  evidence  that  the  applicant  or  his
senior rater made any effort to update the record.  Therefore, in  the
absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no  compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS 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 3 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                       Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
                       Mr. William H. Anderson, Member
                       Mr. John E. B. SMith, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

      Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 27 Nov 00, w/atchs.
      Exhibit B. Applicant's Officer Selection Brief.
      Exhibit C. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPEB, dated 4 Jan 01.
      Exhibit D. Letter, HQ AFPC/DPPPO, dated 10 Jan 01.
      Exhibit E. Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 19 Jan 01.
      Exhibit F. Counsel’s Response, dated 28 Feb 01.




                             HENRY ROMO, JR.
                             Panel Chair