RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00862
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX      COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His assignment history be corrected to show only one assignment  at  HQ
USAF effective 31 Dec 98.

He be  considered  for  promotion  to  lieutenant  colonel  by  special
selection board (SSB) by the  CY00A  (28  Nov  00)  central  lieutenant
colonel selection board

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His  Assignment  History  misrepresented  his  duties  to   the   CY00A
lieutenant colonel selection board, which precluded him from  fair  and
equitable consideration for promotion.

Upon reviewing  his  records  in  preparation  for  his  Below-the-Zone
promotion board, he discovered that his Officer Pre-selection Brief  no
longer showed him assigned to Headquarters  Air  Force.   Instead,  the
brief showed him assigned to an Air Force Logistics  Management  Agency
(AFLMA) position.  He immediately sought help from  Executive  Services
to correct the history and was informed  that  Headquarters  Air  Force
Personnel Center (AFPC) had  directed  his  reassignment  to  an  AFLMA
position.  The applicant states that he was not aware that he was hired
under the AFLMA position because all HQ  Air  Force  positions  in  his
division were fully manned.  He states that when he  was  requested  to
come to work at HQ Air Force, he fully expected to be assigned to a  HQ
Air Force billet.  In addition, to meet Air  Force  needs  as  well  as
maintain solid career progression, he agreed to move on  short  notice,
relinquishing command four months early.   Upon  further  research,  he
found that he had originally been double  billeted  against  a  HQ  Air
Force billet.  As a result his Assignment History reflected that he was
assigned to HQ Air Force for only six months, i.e., from 31 Dec  98  to
28 Jul 99.  He states that he is not attached to AFLMA other  than  the
fact that he occupies one of their position numbers.

He addressed his concerns to  his  superiors  regarding  the  potential
implications for damaging career progression.  Based on the strength of
his records and the potential confusion a letter  to  the  board  might
cause, he was advised by his superiors against writing the board.

The applicant states  that  his  promotion  opportunity  was  adversely
impacted for two reasons:

          A.  His Assignment  History,  a  critical  component  of  the
Officer Selection Record, showed him assigned to HQ Air Force, a  four-
year  tour,  for  only  six  months.   He  also  received  an   Officer
Performance Report (OPR) that closed  out  during  the  period  he  was
assigned to the HQ Air Force position.  The board may  have  considered
the short time he was assigned to the HQ Air Force  position,  the  180
day OPR and his reassignment to an AFLMA position within 30 days of OPR
closeout derogatory.

B.  Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-2406, Table 3.1, line  nine  states:
“The goal is an accurate description of where and  to  whom  the  ratee
belongs.  His OPRs reflect  in  block  8,  “Organization”  that  he  is
assigned to the DCS/Installations and Logistics, (HAF) Pentagon.   This
would be correct if his Assignment History reflected  Headquarters  Air
Force (HAF).  His Assignment History, however, reflects AFLMA, in which
case,  his  OPRs  should  reflect  “With  duty  at…”  to  indicate  the
organization where the officer actually performed duty.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is serving on active duty in the  grade  of  major.   His
Total Active Federal Military Service Date is 24 July 1985.   A  review
of his last ten OPRs reflect overall ratings of “meets standards.”  The
applicant was considered and not selected for promotion  to  lieutenant
colonel by the CY00A (28 Nov 00) central lieutenant  colonel  selection
board.

_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPAPP1 evaluated this application in regards  to  the  applicant’s
contention of incorrect duty history entries.  They determined that the
applicant’s duty history was correct at the time he was considered  for
promotion by the CY00A lieutenant colonel selection board.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

AFPC/DPPPO also evaluated this application and recommends denial of the
applicant’s request for promotion consideration by  SSB.   They  concur
with the findings of AFPC/DPAPP1 regarding assignment duty history.

The applicant is correct  in  stating  his  duty  history  should  only
reflect one entry for “Chief, Information Systems Resource  Branch”  at
HQ Air Force.  HQ AFPC/DPAPP1 compared  the  duty  history  entries  to
those duty titles on the applicant’s officer performance  reports,  and
subsequently corrected the personnel data system (PDS).  Now  there  is
only one entry for the applicant’s assignment at  HQ  Air  Force.   The
applicant, however, believes he is  still  assigned  to  the  Pentagon.
According to his assignment functional officer in HQ AFPC/DPASL, he was
reassigned in Jul 99 from position number 00387420N at the Pentagon  to
position number 00001571G, which is authorized at Air  Force  Logistics
Management Admin (AFLMA).  This is not a HQ  Air  Force  position,  and
therefore his duty history must reflect that he moved from HQ Air Force
to AFLMA--thus the two separate entries  with  identical  duty  titles.
Although the Feb 00 duty entry is a duplicate of the Jul 99 entry, this
minor  error  is  purely  administrative,  and  does  not  warrant  SSB
consideration.  The PDS was corrected and there were no other errors in
the applicant’s record.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit D.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the evaluations in  a  five-page  memorandum
with nine attachments.   He  states  that  since  31  Dec  98,  he  has
performed his duties at the same location in the Pentagon and that  his
duties have not changed.  His  orders  assign  him  to  HQ  Air  Force,
Pentagon, ADM, VA 20330.  His orders do not  assign  him  to  AFLMA,  a
subordinate unit located at Gunter AFB, Alabama.  The applicant  states
that  he  believes  there  are  two  issues   at   hand--fairness   and
administrative material error.

As a matter of fairness, he requests SSB  consideration.   He  requests
that all references to AFLMA be deleted from his duty history.  He  has
not been and is not now performing duties for AFLMA.  Displaying  AFLMA
in his duty history is incorrect and does  not  accurately  and  fairly
portray the duties that he has been assigned.

As  a  matter  of  administrative  material  error,  he  requests   SSB
consideration.  He states that the administrative  realignment  from  a
HAF to an AFLMA position was  accomplished  without  his  knowledge  or
consent.  He states that the Air  Staff  used  the  AFLMA  position  to
offset congressionally mandated manpower ceilings.  This  “bureaucratic
quagmire of the personnel system” impacted  his  promotion  opportunity
and he did not receive due process.

The applicant takes issue  with  the  statement  by  AFPC/DPPAPP1  that
“Based upon source documents, and assignments officer evaluation it was
determined that officers duty history was correct at the  time  of  the
P0500A selection board.”  AFPC/DPPPO state that  they  concur  with  he
findings of AFPC/DPAPP1 yet also state that “HQ  AFPC/DPPAPP1  compared
the duty history entries  to  those  duty  titles  on  the  applicant’s
officer performance reports, and subsequently corrected  the  personnel
data system (PDS).”   According  to  the  applicant,  this  contradicts
earlier statements from both letters stating that his duty history  was
correct at the time of the promotion board.  The applicant states  that
his duty history has been changed five times since the promotion board.
 He also doesn’t understand how AFPC/DPPAPP1  could  use  his  OPRs  to
update the PDS since his OPRs all reflect HAF not AFLMA.

The applicant provides an account of the five changes made to his  duty
history and again points out the contradiction in the  statements  that
his duty history was correct and that the PDS was corrected.   He  also
takes issue  with  the  statement  that  the  duplicate  error  in  his
assignment history is minor and purely administrative.  He  points  out
that  the  “Four  Tenets  of  Effective  Officer   Selection   Records”
highlights the importance of job titles/duty descriptions.

The applicant states that  the  duplicate/AFLMA  entries  in  his  duty
history may have given the board members the impression that he did not
care about what was in his duty history.  Even  if  this  was  not  the
case, he believes the fact that he has AFLMA entries  following  a  HAF
tour is derogatory--especially within six months of being  assigned  to
Headquarters Air Force.

The applicant further states that since AFPC/DPPPO  contends  that  his
duty history must reflect that he moved from HQ  Air  Force  to  AFLMA,
several new issues are created that strengthen his case that an SSB  is
warranted.  Since he was reassigned on paper, he officially moved  from
one command level to another.  Moving from one command to another while
staying in the  same  location  would  create  a  permanent  change  of
assignment (PCA) according to his assignment functional officer.   This
would generate a notification to the member requiring  a  signature  of
acceptance and acknowledgement.  This never occurred.  He  states  that
he was never notified of the change and did not  sign  any  paper  work
acknowledging or accepting the PCA.  He has since obtained a  fax  copy
of the assignment worksheet that generated the PCA.  To  his  surprise,
the “Volunteer” entry states “Yes”.  His functional assignment  manager
cannot explain how this occurred.  His OPR that closed out on 30 Jun 00
and  the  Promotion  Recommendation  Form  (PRF)  that  met  the  CY00A
lieutenant colonel selection board would now be  incorrect  in  several
areas.  His assignment functional officer has confirmed this.   As  his
records now stand, there is direct conflict between his  duty  history,
OPR, and PRF.  Either he is assigned to HQ  Air  Force  and  the  AFLMA
references should be deleted from his duty history or he is assigned to
AFLMA in which case his OPR and PRF are incorrect.

The applicant points out the specific areas that his OPR and PRF  would
be incorrect if he is in fact assigned to AFLMA.  The applicant  states
that since 31 Dec 98,  his  assigned  duties  have  not  changed.   His
assignment  history  misrepresented  his  duties  precluding  him  from
receiving fair and equitable consideration during the CY00A  lieutenant
colonel  selection  board.   In  order  to  maintain  manpower,   under
congressionally mandated ceilings, he was reassigned to  AFLMA  without
his knowledge or consent.  This  action  is  derogatory  and  does  not
convey solid career progression, increased level of responsibility, and
evidence of a successful leadership test.  In  addition,  the  Officers
Promotion Branch counselor and former  promotion  board  members  admit
this discriminator may have caused confusion and /or detracted from his
record.

The applicant’s complete response is at Exhibit F.

_______________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

An additional evaluation was requested from AFPC/DPASL  in  regards  to
the applicant’s reassignment from a Headquarters Air Force position  to
one in the Air Force Logistics management Agency.  AFPC/DPASL  provided
the background on the applicant’s reassignment and again stressed  that
based on the applicant’s reassignment, his duty history was correct.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit G.

AFPC/DPPPO also  provided  an  additional  evaluation  to  address  the
applicant’s request for an SSB.  Based on AFPC/DPASL’s conclusion  that
the applicant’s duty history was correct when  he  was  considered  for
promotion, they again recommend that the applicant’s request for an SSB
be denied.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit H.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT”S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATIONS:

The applicant responded to the  Additional  Air  Force  Evaluations  by
indicating that the concerns outlined in his  previous  responses  have
not been addressed.

He notes that the conclusion by AFPC/DPASL that his  duty  history  was
correct at the time of his promotion board clearly contradicts a letter
by his senior rater urging that his duty history be corrected.

The applicant also states that he is perplexed by the conclusion  drawn
by AFPC/DPPPO that an SSB is not  warranted  in  his  case,  especially
since the officer promotion counselor admitted that this may have  been
a factor in his non-selection for promotion.

He also notes that although AFPC/DPPPO states that there was no  change
in his command level of assignment, a current  printout  clearly  shows
that the command level for his assignment to AFLMA was changed from HAF
to wing/base level.  This reflects  that  with  the  exception  of  six
months credit at HAF, he was assigned at the wing/base level showing no
progression of higher command level responsibilities.

The applicant’s complete response, with attachment, is at Exhibit J.

_______________________________________________________________

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.  Based on our review  of  the
evidence, it appears that the applicant was treated  unfairly  when  he
was transferred to a different  position  number  while  continuing  to
perform the same duties.  We note  that  although  the  command  level,
Major Command, and Organization  indicated  on  his  Officer  Selection
Brief (OSB) may  be  correct  based  on  the  position  number  he  was
reassigned to, we question why  the  “Duty  Title”  remained  the  same
although the OSB clearly indicates a change in “organization”.  It does
not  appear  feasible  that  one  job  would  exist  in  two   separate
organizations.  The Air Force has failed to  adequately  explain  this.
It appears to us that the applicant’s duty section may have manipulated
the position numbers for their purposes without regard to its impact on
the applicant.  We again note that the  applicant’s  OPRs  reflect  his
organization of  assignment  as  U  S  Air  Force,  not  the  Logistics
Management Agency.  While it cannot be said  with  certainty  that  the
inconsistency between the applicant’s OSB and his  performance  reports
contributed to his nonselection for  promotion,  we  believe  that  any
doubt should be resolved in his favor.  Therefore,  we  recommend  that
the applicant’s records be corrected as indicated below.

_______________________________________________________________

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 (OSB) reviewed by the CY00A Central Lieutenant Colonel  Selection
Board, which convened on         28 November 2000, be amended to delete
the entries under the “Assignment History” section identified with  the
effective dates of 28 Jul 1999 and 16 Feb 2000.

It is further recommended that he be considered for  promotion  to  the
grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board  (SSB)  for  the
CY00A (28 Nov 00) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board  with  the
corrected OSB.

_______________________________________________________________

The following members of  the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 12 December 2001, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Henry Romo, Jr., Panel Chair
      Mr. Patrick R. Wheeler, Member
      Mr. Roscoe Hinton, Jr., Member

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

     Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 20 Mar 01, w/atchs.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPAPP1, dated 9 May 01.
     Exhibit D.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 1 Jun 01.
     Exhibit E.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
     Exhibit F.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 11 Jul 01,
                 w/atchs.
     Exhibit G.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPASL, dated 24 Sep 01.
     Exhibit H.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 5 Nov 01.
     Exhibit I.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Nov 01.
     Exhibit J.  Memorandum, Applicant, dated 26 Nov 01,
                 W/atch.




                                   HENRY ROMO, JR.
                                   Panel Chair



AFBCMR 01-00862




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 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXX-XX-XXXX, be corrected  to  show  that
the Officer  Selection  Brief  (OSB)  reviewed  by  the  CY00A  Central
Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, which convened on 28 November 2000,
be  amended  to  delete  in  their  entirety  the  entries  under   the
“Assignment History” section identified with the effective dates of  28
Jul 1999 and 16 Feb 2000.

      It is further directed that he be considered for promotion to
the grade of lieutenant colonel by Special Selection Board (SSB)
for the CY00A (28 Nov 00) Central Lieutenant Colonel Selection
Board with the corrected OSB.






            JOE G. LINEBERGER
            Director
            Air Force Review Boards Agency