RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-00908
            INDEX NUMBER:  131.00

      XXXXXXXXXXXXXX   COUNSEL:  None

      XXX-XX-XXXX      HEARING DESIRED:  No

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be granted promotion consideration to colonel by  special  selection
board (SSB) by the CY00A (17 Jul 00) (PO600A) central colonel selection
board.

The Officer Effectiveness  Reports  (OERs)  rendered  on  him  for  the
periods closing 10 September 1978 and 10 September  1979,  be  declared
void and removed from his records based on the  principle  of  accuracy
instead of timeliness of his appeal.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The citation for the Meritorious Service Medal, Second Oak Leaf Cluster
(MSM, 2OLC) was not in his officer selection record (OSR) and the  MSM,
4OLC was not reflected on his officer selection brief (OSB) when he was
considered for promotion  to  colonel  by  the  CY00A  central  colonel
selection board.

His first two Officer Effectiveness Reports were documented  to  be  in
error but were not removed from his record due to timeliness  over  the
principle of accuracy.  In  the  case  of  errors  with  his  DOR,  the
principle of accuracy was applied over  the  principle  of  timeliness.
When he entered active duty on   5 Jul 82 in the grade of captain after
four years in the Air Force Reserve, he was given a DOR of  16  Feb  82
for promotion purposes.  Based on his review of  regulations  regarding
constructive service for reserve chaplains, he challenged by phone  and
in writing the DOR decision.  He believed that the correct  DOR  was  5
Jul 81.  His appeal was denied and he took no further  action  trusting
that if 5 Jul 81 was correct, it would be discovered during  audits  of
his personnel records.  Such an audit was conducted in 1988 and his DOR
was established as     5 Jul 81.  As a result, he was promoted to major
by a special selection board (SSB) and received an earlier pin on date.
 Four years later, another audit determined that  his  DOR  to  captain
should have been 5 Jul 80.  He inquired through his  chain  of  command
and the Air Reserve Personnel Center (ARPC) about the reasons for  this
change and sought to keep the  5  Jul  81  DOR.   He  talked  with  the
individual that conducted the audit leading to the change and was  told
that the new DOR was correct.  The applicant points out  that  although
it may have been correct, it took place 10 years  after  the  fact  and
was, therefore, not  timely.   He  would  now  like  the  principle  of
accuracy applied in regards to the removal of the two  OERs  that  ARPC
and the AFBCMR declined to remove from his records based on timeliness.

The applicant’s complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_______________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is presently serving on active duty as a Chaplain in  the
grade of lieutenant colonel.  His Total Active Federal Military Service
Date is 16 Feb 82.

The applicant was considered and not selected for promotion to  colonel
(O-6) by the CY98C (1 Dec 98) and CY00A (17  Jul  00)  central  colonel
selection boards.  By Special Order (SO) GA-118, dated 31 Aug  95,  the
applicant was awarded the MSM, 2OLC.  By SO G-GA82, dated 30 May 00, he
was awarded the MSM, 4OLC.

On 13 Sep 94, the AFBCMR considered and denied based  on  timeliness  a
request from the applicant to remove two OERs, closing out  10  Sep  78
and 10 Sep 79 from his records.

A profile of the applicant’s last ten OPRs follows:

        Closeout Date                   Overall Evaluation

          15 Apr 91                        Meets  Standards          15
Apr 92                         Meets Standards
          15 Apr 93                       Meets Standards
          15 Apr 94                       Meets Standards
         *15 Apr 95                       Meets Standards
          15 Apr 96                       Meets Standards
          15 Apr 97                       Meets Standards
        **15 Apr 98                       Meets Standards
          15 Apr 99                       Meets Standards
          15 Apr 00                       Meets Standards

* First OPR as a Lt Col
** Top Report during the CY98C Lt Col selection board


_______________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Chief, Officer Promotion, Appointments, and Selective  Continuation
Branch,  evaluated  this  application  and  recommends  denial  of  the
applicant’s request.

The portion of the application to appeal the MSM, 2OLC is  not  timely.
They agree with the applicant that this citation was missing  from  his
OSR.  The applicant’s OSB did reflect  the  MSM,  2OLC,  however.   The
promotion board was therefore aware of the decoration.   They  are  not
convinced that the  missing  decoration  citation  contributed  to  the
applicant’s nonselection for promotion.

In reference to the applicant’s contention that the MSM, 4OLC, was  not
reflected on his OSB, the citation was filed in  his  record  when  the
board convened.  As with the other decoration, the board was  aware  of
the decoration and what level decoration was awarded.

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_______________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant responded to the Air Force evaluation by stating that  he
understands the proposal that the missing MSM is not a major factor  in
consideration for promotion.  He indicates  that  he  firmly  believes,
however, that  the  missing  decorations  together  with  the  detailed
factors he spelled out in his application are the main reasons  he  was
not promoted to colonel (O-6).  The  applicant  speculates  about  what
effect the change of his DOR and the presence of two OERs  with  errors
may have had on his promotion opportunity.  He asks for guidance as  to
the best manner in which to present his case.  He also talks about  the
anomalies created in his record by the second change of his  DOR.   The
applicant further gives examples of his performance although he is  now
twice passed over to colonel  (O-6).

The complete evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_______________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by  existing  law
or regulations.

2.  That portion of the applicant’s appeal pertaining to  his   request
for an SSB is timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate
the existence of probable error or injustice warranting the Board grant
an SSB.  We took notice  of  the  applicant's  complete  submission  in
judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion  and
recommendation of the Air Force office of  primary  responsibility  and
adopt their  rationale  as  the  basis  for  our  conclusion  that  the
applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.

4.   We  note  the  previous  Board’s  decision  to  invoke  timeliness
regarding the applicant’s request to remove the two OERs closing out 10
September 1978 and 10 September 1979.  The evidence provided is not new
and relevant.  Therefore, we find no compelling  reason  to  grant  the
relief requested.

_______________________________________________________________

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 5 September 2001, under the provisions of AFI  36-
2603:

      Mr. Gregory H. Petkoff, Panel Chair
      Mr. Clarence D. Long, Member
      Ms. Nancy W. Drury, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 26 Mar 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Memorandum, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 2 May 01.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 18 May 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, Applicant, dated 14 Jun 01.




                                   GREGORY H. PETKOFF
                                   Panel Chair