RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03248
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX    COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

The following corrections be made to his Officer Selection Record (OSR)
that met the Calendar Year 2000A (CY00A) Colonel Selection Board:

        A.  Include a copy of the citation for the Meritorious  Service
Medal (MSM) Second Oak Leaf Cluster  (2OLC)  he  was  awarded  for  the
period 28 May 1993 to 1 July 1996.

        B.  Correct the entry on his assignment history  to  accurately
reflect the location and command of his Phase II Joint PME Training.

        C.  Include the MSM (4OLC) that he was awarded for “Outstanding
Achievement” for the period 4 April 1999 to      12 June 1999.

He be considered for promotion to colonel by  Special  Selection  Board
(SSB) for the CY00A Colonel Selection Board.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The citation for the MSM (2OLC) was missing from his OSR.

The entry for his attendance to Phase II Joint  PME  listed  the  wrong
location and gave the selection board an erroneous  impression  of  his
time on station.

The recommendation for his MSM (4OLC) was  lost  and  consequently  not
approved in time to meet the CY00A Colonel Selection Board.  The  award
covered a period one-year prior to the Board and should be  seen  by  a
supplemental board.

Applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________
STATEMENT OF FACTS:


According to data contained in the Personnel Data System, the applicant
is serving on active duty as a lieutenant colonel.   His  Total  Active
Federal Military  Service  Date  is  14  Dec  78.   The  applicant  was
considered, but  not  selected  for  promotion  by  the  CY00A  Colonel
Selection Board.  The  applicant’s  last  ten  performance  evaluations
reflect overall ratings of “meets standards.”


_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Superintendent,  Assignment  Procedures/Joint   Officer   Matters,
AFPC/DPAPP1, evaluated this application in reference to the applicant’s
request to accurately reflect the  location  of  his  PME.   Since  the
course the applicant attended was TDY length, the duty location history
is not to be changed.  The command level, however, required  an  update
to “ST” (student).  They reviewed the applicant’s source documents  and
the Education Training Report did reflect the correct  organization  of
assignment and location at the time of the designated promotion  board.
The applicant’s record  has  been  corrected  to  reflect  the  correct
command level.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Chief, Officer Promotion, Appointments,  &  Selective  Continuation
Branch, reviewed this  application  in  reference  to  the  applicant’s
request for inclusion of the citation for his MSM (2OLC), inclusion  of
the MSM (4OLC), and consideration for promotion by SSB.  They recommend
that the applicant’s requests be denied.

Even though the MSM (2OLC) citation and/or special order  were  not  on
file in the OSR when the board convened, the board members knew of  its
existence as evidenced by the entry  on  the  Officer  Selection  Brief
(OSB) and presence of the discrepancy  report.   Therefore,  the  board
knew the decoration was awarded to the applicant, which is the ultimate
purpose of including it  in  the  promotion  selection  process.   More
importantly, all the accomplishments included in the citation were also
written  into  the  applicant’s  officer  performance  reports   (OPRs)
covering the inclusive dates of the decoration.  As such,  the  absence
of that citation from the OSR does not  constitute  a  material  error.
While it may be argued that the missing MSM (2OLC) was a factor in  the
applicant’s nonselection, there is no clear evidence that  its  absence
negatively impacted his promotion opportunity.

The applicant contends that his MSM (4OLC) was lost and not received in
time for the CY00A board.  He states, “The award covered a  period  one
year before the board met and should be seen by a supplemental  board.”
They note the decoration closeout date is 12 Jun 99,  and  the  special
order was published on 25 Jul 00.  AFI 36-2803,  paragraph  3.1  states
decoration recommendations are entered into official channels within  2
years and awarded within 3 years of the act,  achievement,  or  service
performed.”  In addition, AFI 36-2803, figure 3.1, note 5, states  that
citations and special orders must be forwarded within 30  days  of  the
date of the special order.  As such, the  special  order  and  citation
were processed within the guidelines of the  governing  directive,  and
neither the citation nor special order was due for file  until  25  Aug
00.  Accordingly, the MSM (4OLC) was not required to be on file for the
board, nor could it have been since  the  special  order  awarding  the
decoration had not been published when the  board  convened.   Further,
the applicant has provided no evidence from the awarding  authority  or
his evaluators  demonstrating  any  attempts  to  have  the  decoration
forwarded to AFPC upon publication of the special order.   Finally,  if
the applicant was aware of his nomination for this decoration, he could
have written a letter to the board informing them of this fact.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air  Force  evaluations  in  a  two-page
letter by stating that  he  was  providing  additional  information  to
assist the board  in  understanding  facts  regarding  his  request  to
correct an injustice resulting from three administrative errors in  his
July 2000 promotion selection folder.  The  applicant  states  that  he
strongly  disagrees  with  the  advisory  opinion  on  his  case.   The
applicant provided a rebuttal to the Air Force position on each of  the
three errors he is seeking to have corrected.

The applicant concludes that the board made tough  decisions  based  on
officer  performance  and  the  key  documentation   highlighting   his
performance was simply  never  seen.   Three  negligent  administrative
errors denied the promotion board this critical information.  The  lack
of the 1996 approved award narrative and the  administrative  error  in
the Joint PME issue placed him at a distinct  disadvantage  during  the
promotion board.  The  absence  of  the  final  award  documenting  his
capstone achievements during NATO operations in Kosovo and Albania also
placed him  at  a  distinct  disadvantage  to  other  candidates.   The
negative impact is even greater when the cumulative effect of all three
mistakes is considered.  These  administrative  errors  are  especially
bothersome given his multiple attempts to correct them.

The applicant’s complete response 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  not  timely  filed;  however,  it  is  in  the
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice.  We took  notice  of  the
applicant's complete submission in judging  the  merits  of  the  case;
however, the majority  of  the  Board  agrees  with  the  opinions  and
recommendations of the Air Force offices of primary responsibility  and
adopt their rationale as the primary basis for our conclusion that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.  Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the majority of  the  Board
finds no compelling basis to recommend granting the  relief  sought  in
this application.

_______________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD:

A majority of  the  Board  finds  insufficient  evidence  of  error  or
injustice and recommends the application be denied.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 22 May 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Richard A. Peterson, Panel Chair
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member
      Mr. Jay H. Jordan, Member

By a majority vote, the Board voted to  deny  applicant’s  request.
Mr. Jordan voted to grant the  applicant’s  requests  but  did  not
desire to submit a  minority  report.   The  following  documentary
evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 1 Dec 00, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 8 Jan 01.
    Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 1 Feb 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 16 Feb 01.
    Exhibit F.  Letter, Applicant, dated 15 Mar 01, w/atch.




                                   RICHARD A. PETERSON
                                   Panel Chair





MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE BOARD
                 FORCORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (AFBCMR)

SUBJECT:  AFBCMR Application of XXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX

      I have carefully reviewed the evidence of record and the
recommendation of the Board members.  A majority found that applicant
had not provided sufficient evidence of error or injustice and
recommended the case be denied.  I concur with that finding and their
conclusion that relief is not warranted.  Accordingly, I accept their
recommendation that the application be denied.

      Please advise the applicant accordingly.




                                        JOE G. LINEBERGER
                                        Director
                                        Air Force Review Boards Agency