RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS



IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  00-03328

            INDEX NUMBER:  111.01; 131.01


            COUNSEL:  NONE


            HEARING DESIRED: YES

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

1.  Her most recent assignment and duty  title  of  Chief,  Product
Line Division, at Hanscom AFB, MA, effective 26 November  1999,  be
updated on the officer selection brief (OSB) reviewed by the  CY99B
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board;

2.  Her 27 February 1999 duty title on the OSB for the CY99B  Board
be changed to read “Director, Top Secret and Below Interoperability
Operations”;

3.  The Citation for the Joint Service Achievement Medal (JSAM)  be
included in her record for the CY99B Board; and,

4.  She be considered  by  a  Special  Selection  Board  (SSB)  for
promotion  to  the  grade  of  lieutenant  colonel  by  the   CY99B
(30 November 1999) Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

At the time of the board, her new assignment to  Hanscom  AFB  with
the  duty  title  of  Chief,  Product  Line   Division,   effective
26 November 1999, was missing.  The Citation to Accompany the Award
of the JSAM was missing.   Her  last  job  title  at  the  National
Security  Agency  (NSA)  was  Director,  Top   Secret   and   Below
Interoperability Operations.

In  support,  the  applicant  provided  copies  of  the  OSB  dated
24 November 1999; a Memorandum for Record--Board Discrepancy Report
for Board PO599B, dated 19 November 1999; the  Officer  Performance
Report (OPR) closing 30 October 1999; the order, citation and award
for the JSAM; and a document indicating the  date  she  arrived  on
station at Hanscom AFB.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

___________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information  extracted  from  the  Personnel  Data   System   (PDS)
indicates that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in
the grade of major, having been promoted to  that  grade  effective
6 February 1995.  Her total active federal  military  service  date
(TAFMSD) is 23 November 1981.

Applicant's OPR profile for the last 10 reporting periods follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      26 Feb 92  Meets Standards
      26 Feb 93  Meets Standards
      26 Feb 94  Meets Standards
      26 Feb 95  Meets Standards
      26 Feb 96  Meets Standards
      26 Feb 97  Meets Standards
      26 Feb 98  Meets Standards
  *   26 Feb 99  Meets Standards
 **   30 Oct 99  Meets Standards
***   30 Aug 00  Meets Standards

*Top  report  CY99A  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board,   which
convened on 19 April 1999.

**Top  report  CY99B  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board,  which
convened on 30 November 1999.

***Top report  CY00A  Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board,  which
convened on 28 November 2000.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  the
grade of O-5 by the CY99A (in  the  promotion  zone  (IPZ)),  CY99B
(above the promotion zone  (APZ)),  and  CY00A  Lieutenant  Colonel
Selection Boards.

___________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The  Chief,  Comm-Info  Assignments,   AFPC/DPAS,   reviewed   this
application and agreed with the applicant that the  duty  title  in
the HAF system should reflect the duty title  on  the  OPR  closing
30 October 1999.  He also agreed that  she  was  on  assignment  to
Hanscom AFB and reported in November 1999.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

Upon  reviewing  the  applicant’s  claims,   the   Chief,   Officer
Promotion, Appts, and Sel Cont Branch, AFPC/DPPPO, agreed with  the
Chief, Comm-Info Assignments,  and  updated  the  applicant’s  duty
title with an effective date of 29 November 1999, since she arrived
at Hanscom AFB on 26  November  1999.   While  AFPC/DPPPO  did  not
object to the correction, they pointed  out  that  she  arrived  on
station 4 days prior to the board’s convening date of  30  November
1999, and the PDS was updated  to  reflect  an  effective  date  of
29 November  1999--one  day  prior  to  the  convening  date.   The
applicant provided no documentation  from  her  servicing  military
personnel flight (MPF) that there was any attempt on their part  to
contact the Officer Promotions Branch (HQ AFPC/DPPPOO) with the new
information so that it could be updated and reviewed by  the  CY99B
board.  Furthermore, she could have informed the board president of
her new duty assignment and duty title, but elected not to  do  so.
Therefore, they do not support promotion  reconsideration  on  this
issue.

AFPC/DPPPO also agreed with AFPC/DPAS  that  the  applicant’s  duty
title should match the duty title on the corresponding OPR  closing
30  October  1999,  and  they  updated  the  PDS  to  reflect   the
appropriate  duty  title,   “Director,   Top   Secret   and   Below
Interoperability Operations.”

Regarding the missing citation for the JSAM, even though it was not
on file for the board, it was listed on the OSB  and  there  was  a
discrepancy letter, dated 19 November 1999, requesting  a  copy  of
the citation from the MPF.  More importantly,  the  accomplishments
included in the citation were  also  included  in  the  applicant’s
26 February 1999 OPR.  Therefore, the absence of the citation  does
not constitute a  material  error  and  SSB  consideration  is  not
warranted.

AFPC/DPPPO reviewed the applicant’s officer selection record  (OSR)
and noted that the 30 October 1999 OPR was  accepted  for  file  on
24 November 1999--six days prior to the board’s convening date.  In
addition,  the  CY99B  promotion  recommendation  form  (PRF)  also
included the correct duty title.   The  board  had  both  of  these
documents for review.

The same duty title was not only on the CY99B brief,  but  also  on
the CY99A brief.  The applicant had more than ample opportunity  to
correct this information  prior  to  either  board.   She  has  not
demonstrated she exercised reasonable diligence in the  maintenance
of her records, and as  such,  promotion  reconsideration  on  this
issue is not warranted.

A complete copy of DPPPA’s  evaluation,  with  attachments,  is  at
Exhibit D.

___________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

Copies of the  evaluations  were  forwarded  to  the  applicant  on
23 February  2001,  for  review  and  response   within   30   days
(Exhibit E).  As of this date, she has not responded.

___________________________________________________________________

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.

      a.  While it is true that the applicant's record  before  the
CY99B Lieutenant  Colonel  Selection  Board  did  not  include  the
citation for award of the Joint Service Achievement  Medal  (JSAM),
the  Board  members  were  aware  of   the   decoration   and   her
accomplishments.  The award was listed  on  her  officer  selection
brief (OSB) and her selection record contained a Board  Discrepancy
Report for the missing  award.   Furthermore,  the  accomplishments
noted in the citation were included in her 26 February 1999 OPR.

      b.  The applicant’s contentions that there were errors on her
OSB with regard to her  assignment  history  at  the  time  of  the
selection board were duly noted.  However, while  the  27  February
1999 duty title on the brief should have reflected  “Director,  Top
Secret and Below Interoperability Operations,”  the  board  members
were aware of the correct duty title because it was  shown  on  the
OPR closing 30 October 1999, and the Promotion Recommendation  Form
(PRF) prepared for the CY99B board.  In this regard, we  note  that
several months prior to the convening dates  of  selection  boards,
each officer eligible for promotion  consideration  is  provided  a
preselection brief containing information which will be reviewed by
the respective board.  It is the officer’s responsibility to review
the information for accuracy  and  to  insure  that  any  necessary
corrective actions are taken before the board convenes.  Other than
her own assertions, we have seen no  evidence  that  the  applicant
attempted to correct the cited discrepancies on the OSB before  the
selection board.  We noted that the cited inaccuracies on  the  OSB
for the CY99B Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board were also  on  the
OSB considered by an earlier selection board.   Therefore,  in  our
opinion, the applicant did not  exercise  reasonable  diligence  in
insuring that her record before the board was accurate.

      c.  Furthermore,  and  more  importantly,  we  have  seen  no
evidence which would lead us to believe that the cited inaccuracies
on the OSB and the missing citation caused the  applicant’s  record
to be so inaccurate or misleading that  the  members  of  the  duly
constituted  selection  board  were  precluded  from  rendering   a
reasonable decision concerning her promotability in comparison with
her peers.  In view  of  the  foregoing,  and  in  the  absence  of
evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling basis to  recommend
granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  AFPC/DPAS and AFPC/DPPPO have confirmed  that  the  applicant’s
assignment history discrepancies have been updated.

5.  The documentation provided with this  case  was  sufficient  to
give the Board a clear understanding of the issues involved  and  a
personal appearance,  with  or  without  counsel,  would  not  have
materially added to that understanding.  Therefore, the request for
a hearing is not favorably considered.

___________________________________________________________________

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 10 April 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-
2603:

                 Ms. Peggy E. Gordon, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Philip Sheuerman, Member
                 Mr. Michael V. Barbino, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 14 November 2000, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPAS, dated 11 Jan 2001.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 9 February 2001, w/atchs.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 23 February 2001.




                                   PEGGY E. GORDON
                                   Panel Chair