RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  01-01215
            INDEX CODE:  131.01

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

She be given Special Selection Board (SSB) consideration for promotion
to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the Calendar Year 2000A  (CY00A)
Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 28 Nov 00.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

The citation for award of the Meritorious Service Medal (MSM) was  not
filed in her Office Selection Record (OSR) when she was considered for
promotion by the CY00A Lieutenant Colonel Board.

A discrepancy letter that was filed in her OSR indicating  her  record
was missing documentation of her medical board  certification  was  in
error--her Air Force Specialty  Code  (AFSC)  does  not  require  such
certification.

In  support  of  her  appeal,  the   applicant   provided   supportive
statements, a personal statement, an extract of  AFI  36-2501,  and  a
copy of a discrepancy report.

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  on  1 Jun  96.   Her  Total
Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is 10 Oct 84.

Applicant's  Officer  Performance  Report  (OPR)  profile  since  1990
follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

       1 Mar 90              Meets Standards
      28 Dec 90              Meets Standards
      28 Jun 91              Meets Standards
      28 Jun 92              Meets Standards
      14 Nov 92              Meets Standards
      14 Nov 93              Meets Standards
      14 Nov 94              Meets Standards
      10 Aug 95              Meets Standards
      10 Aug 96              Meets Standards
      10 Aug 97              Meets Standards
      10 Aug 98              Meets Standards
       4 Jun 99              Meets Standards
      19 May 00              Meets Standards
  #  18 Oct 00               Meets Standards

# Top Report at the  time  she  was  considered  and  nonselected  for
promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel by the CY00A  (28 Nov 00)
Lt Col Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The  Promotion,  Evaluation,  and  Recognition  Division,  AFPC/DPPPO,
reviewed this application and recommended  denial.   DPPPO  noted  the
applicant’s contention that her basic MSM  citation  was  not  in  her
record for the P0500A central board.  They  agreed.   DPPPO  indicated
that although the citation was not 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).   Therefore,  they   knew   the
decoration was awarded, which is the ultimate purpose of including  it
in the promotion selection process.  Specifically cited is that orders
granting decorations may be filed and maintained when a like  citation
is not available.  This speaks to the “knowledge”  that  a  decoration
was given as opposed to the “contents” of the citation.  In  addition,
there was a subsequent higher-level decoration  filed  in  the  OSR--a
Meritorious Service Medal, First Oak  Leaf  Cluster,  for  the  period
4 Dec 95 through 20 Jun 99--when the board convened.   Central  boards
evaluate the entire  (OSR)  (including  the  promotion  recommendation
form, officer  performance  reports,  officer  effectiveness  reports,
training reports, letters of evaluation,  decorations,  and  the  OSB,
assessing whole person factors such as job  performance,  professional
qualities, depth and breadth of experience, leadership,  and  academic
and professional military education.   The  selection  board  had  the
applicant’s entire OSR that clearly outlined her accomplishments since
the date she came on active duty.

DPPPO noted the applicant’s statement that her AFSC does  not  require
board certification.  DPPPO indicated that, according to HQ AFPC/DPAM,
Nurse Utilization and Education Branch, since her AFSC at one time had
an “M” prefix, she is medically certified, and she should  have  taken
steps to ensure documentation was filed in  her  OSR.   Her  OSB  also
reflects she is board certified,  so  board  members  would  not  have
assumed her record was in error when they saw the  discrepancy  letter
annotating missing certification documentation--only that  the  actual
documentation was missing.  According to DPPPO, they  advised  her  of
this on 23 May 01, by telephone.

A complete copy of the evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated that she is confident that the discrepancy  report
reviewed by the Central Selection Board  gave  a  negative  impression
towards her records being evaluated fairly.   The  word  “discrepancy”
alone means inconsistent or different.  Furthermore, the report  would
not be part of the selection process if it did not make a difference.

Applicant stated that prior to the convening of the Board,  she  spoke
to the Assistant Branch Chief/Nurse Utilization  Officer  at  Randolph
AFB.  She requested that it be confirmed if her AFSC  had  changed  on
her record since she was meeting the board.  At that time, no  mention
was made of a discrepancy report in  her  OSR.   She  learned  of  the
discrepancy report after the board.  She  contacted  the  individual’s
supervisor about not being informed about the report.   She  was  told
that it was not that individual’s responsibility to review records.

Applicant’s complete response and additional documentary evidence  are
at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

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.   The  applicant's
complete submission was thoroughly reviewed and her  contentions  were
duly noted.  However, we do not find the  applicant’s  assertions  and
the documentation presented in  support  of  her  appeal  sufficiently
persuasive to override the rationale provided by the Air Force  office
of primary responsibility (OPR).  The applicant’s comments that AFI 36-
2501 required that she be notified by the  Military  Personnel  Flight
(MPF) of the discrepancies in her  record  were  noted.   However,  it
appears that the portion  of  AFI  36-2501  that  she  refers  to  and
provides pertains to general officers.  In view of the foregoing,  and
in the absence  of  evidence  to  support  a  determination  that  the
applicant’s  record  before  the  original  selection  board  was   so
inaccurate  or  misleading  that  the  board  was  unable  to  make  a
reasonable decision concerning her promotability  in  relationship  to
her peers, we find no  compelling  basis  to  recommend  granting  the
relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
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 25 Jul 01, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Joseph G. Diamond, Panel Chair
      Mr. Edward H. Parker, Member
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 16 Apr 01, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPO, dated 31 May 01, w/atch.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 15 Jun 01.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, applicant, dated 27 Jun 01, w/atch.




                                   JOSEPH G. DIAMOND
                                   Panel Chair